Asset Forfeiture

Music Videos, Drugs, Whatever: The DEA Will Take That $18,000, Young Man

Civil forfeiture tactics are increasingly making the news.

|

Saving the world from music videos.
DEA

Law enforcement agencies in the state of New Mexico may not be able to seize citizens' assets without charging them with a crime, thanks to a new law signed last month. But said law means nothing to federal law enforcement agencies. While the Department of Justice investigates alleged racist police practices in Baltimore, the agency's wayward child, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), is snatching the life savings of a young black male for the crime of being alone on a train.

The man, Joseph Rivers, 22, was traveling from Michigan to Los Angeles by train with $18,000 in cash to pay for a music video. In Albuquerque, DEA agents boarded the train and started asking people questions. They got to Rivers, who told him he was going to shoot a music video and agreed to let them search his stuff. That, as police abuse observers know full well, was going to be a mistake. Joline Guiterrez Krueger of the Albuquerque Journal was alerted to what happened by a contact who also happened to be on the train and ended up helping Rivers when he was left with nothing:

Rivers was the only passenger singled out for a search by DEA agents – and the only black person on his portion of the train, [attorney Michael] Pancer said.

In one of the bags, the agent found the cash, still in the Michigan bank envelope.

"I even allowed him to call my mother, a military veteran and (hospital) coordinator, to corroborate my story," Rivers said. "Even with all of this, the officers decided to take my money because he stated that he believed that the money was involved in some type of narcotic activity."

Rivers was left penniless, his dream deferred.

"These officers took everything that I had worked so hard to save and even money that was given to me by family that believed in me," Rivers said in his email. "I told (the DEA agents) I had no money and no means to survive in Los Angeles if they took my money. They informed me that it was my responsibility to figure out how I was going to do that."

Other travelers had witnessed what happened. One of them, a New Mexico man I've written about before but who asked that I not mention his name, provided a way for Rivers to get home, contacted attorneys – and me.

What does the DEA in Albuquerque have to say about it? They wouldn't say much but insisted Rivers hadn't been racially profiled:

Waite said that in general DEA agents look for "indicators" such as whether the person bought an expensive one-way ticket with cash, if the person is traveling from or to a city known as a hot spot for drug activity, if the person's story has inconsistencies or if the large sums of money found could have been transported by more conventional means.

"We don't have to prove that the person is guilty," Waite said. "It's that the money is presumed to be guilty."

Those are the now-heavily-publicized rules for civil, not criminal, asset forfeiture. The money is the defendant, regular criminal due process does not apply, and Rivers will face a huge battle trying to get it back, assuming this burst of publicity doesn't help at all. A GoFundMe page has been set up to try to replace Rivers' money.

A reminder: Several legislators are unhappy with this system and have introduced a bill to reform how civil asset forfeiture works on the federal level. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich) are trying to push through the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act to make it harder for the feds to seize people's assets through the civil forfeiture process and puts the burden on the feds to prove that the property was being used for something illicit. Read more about the legislation here

NEXT: "Ottawa considering hate charges against those who boycott Israel"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. puts the burden on the feds to prove that the property was being used for something illicit.

    Unless the burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” and something illicit is “a federal crime (preferably a felony)”, I won’t be impressed.

    1. Exactly,

      I’m not sure how it is constitutional for the Feds to take civil actions at all (I mean this sincerely). How was it determined that the Feds could punish without a criminal conviction? This is not just an asset forfeiture thing, there are civil suits filed by governmental entities regularly.

  2. “We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Waite said. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”

    THIS IS WHAT THESE PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

    1. “We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Waite said. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”

      Oh, is that what the 5th Amendment says? Maybe Waite has one of those special versions with the invisible ink.

      1. I can’t believe this is an actual quote from the DEA.

        I mean I can, but still it’s just fucking amazing.

        1. If only Comrade Lynch knew of this thing, surely she would stop it!

          1. It is a sin to speak her name in this context.

        2. Fuck the FAIR Act… this is gonna need a constitutional amendment.

          One that says “No charges or lawsuits shall be made against animals, inanimate objects, or anything except persons.”

          We really need to enshrine “All persons are innocent until proven guilty” in the Constitution as well.

          1. both are already covered clearly in the Constitutioin. What needs to happen is some judges need to comply with their oaths of office, wherein they swore to uphold the COnstitution. Money is NOT an “actor”, it is an inanimate object and can do nothing of itself to incur guilt. This is the same sich thinking that ascribes evil intent to firearms. No gun, no piece of money, is capable of doing anything of its own. It must be used by a person. Thus the entire concept of money being guilty or innocent is bogus, and these fools know it. This is beyond a perversion of law and justice, it is a crime in its own right. And one more aspect of the failed war on drugs having unintended consequences and being more harmful in its actions than the alledged harm of the drugs they accuse this man of dealing.

            What, will some lawmakers DO something about this travesty, or will citizens have to rise up and deal with it ourselves? Imagine how different things would have turned out had about a dozen law abiding and armed citizens stood up to this filthy thief on the train and commanded him to leave this young man alone?

        3. Why hard to believe? That’s the doctrine on in rem proceedings: Not that the thing is presumed guilty in advance, but that once the 1st move, i.e. the seizure, is made, then the burden is on anyone else to contest it.

      2. Odd. Deprivation of property is supposed to require that thingee. What is it? Dude sauces? Rue process?

        1. Rue Paulsauces.

        2. Fuck you that’s why?

                  1. Or maybe due penaltax works better.

        3. They are saying that they aren’t taking away the money, they are indicting it, like a ham sandwich.

      3. Let’s see. 4th Amendment…

        “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Excepting, of course, those houses, persons, papers, or effects which may appear Somewhat Suspicious IYKWIMAITYD, in which case you can totally Seize whatever is convenient.”

        I’ll be damned. I guess I just never read far enough.

      4. Money doesn’t have Constitutional rights – that’s the loophole that needs to be closed. But property cannot have agency, and therefore cannot commit crimes. I hope this makes all the way to SCOTUS.

        1. that is no loophole. the “loophole” comes in when these federal goon squads go mucking about doing what they will IN SPITE of the clear wording of the Constitution. SOMEHOW, someone needs to begin prosecuting these federal operatives for the thieves and barstids they are. When a few of them face real consequences for acting as they do, it might slow down a mite.

    2. I doubt it. No one believes that. They just say it because that is the justification that is legally acceptable for some incomprehensible reason. It doesn’t make sense in any way at all to say that the money is guilty.

      1. They got to Rivers, who told him he was going to shoot a music video and agreed to let them search his stuff. That, as police abuse observers know full well, was going to be a mistake.

        Does it really matter if you consent to a search or not? Once they decide they are going to search you, then they’re going to search you by any means necessary. Including just searching you anyway and lying about it on the report by saying you consented. They don’t care. It’s not like they face any consequences for their illegal actions. They do what they want. What are you going to do? Call the cops?

        1. whoops. That wasn’t supposed to be a reply.

            1. And then I says, Yeah Baby! I want to be bad! I says Churchill space ponies I’m making gravy without the lumps! Ah ha ha ha ha haaaaa!!!!!

        2. According to the article, if you don’t consent they can hold your bags until they obtain a warrant (which will no doubt be granted) but you are free to leave.

          1. According to the article, if you don’t consent they can hold your bags until they obtain a warrant (which will no doubt be granted) but you are free to leave.

            Yeah. Like that video from a while back where the cop wanted to search some guy’s car, and when he refused the cop said he was free to go. Without his car.

        3. I have no idea how the DEA operates. But I do know people who have successfully declined requests to search their car. So it isn’t completely pointless. Yeah, they will search you if they are sufficiently determined to do so. But fortunately laziness, and very occasionally respect for constitutional rights, comes into play as well.
          And judging from some of the interactions with cops videos on Youtube, at least some departments seem to be training officers on how to deal with people who assert their rights.

          1. …at least some departments seem to be training officers on how to deal with people who assert their rights.

            “FURTIVE MOVEMENT!!! *BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM, BLAM* Good shoot.”

            1. OK, fine. If it’s so bad, why don’t we all just give up on having rights at all? Obviously there is no way anything could ever get better. So why fucking bother at all even thinking about rights? Don’t we have better things we could be doing?

              The fact is that most cops aren’t utter psychopaths. Most of them never kill or beat the shit out of anyone. They all bear responsibility for the awful, disgusting police culture that has developed. But a whole lot of them genuinely would prefer to have peaceful, reasonable interactions with people when possible. And a few even genuinely care about rights.

              1. Perhaps I should start tagging all of my posts as “/sarc”.

                Lighten up, Francis.

              2. The fact is that most cops aren’t utter psychopaths.

                Citation needed.

                Most of them never kill or beat the shit out of anyone.

                Most of the time the peasants do as they are told. When peasants don’t immediately obey they get the shit kicked out of them. It’s never happened to me because I’ve always done what I was told, though I’ve been threatened with violence by the police. And I’ve watched them cheerfully beat the shit out of people right in front of me. It’s their job. Their trade is in violence and deception. Refusing to obey is considered an act of violence by most cops, and they respond to it with violence. The prevailing attitude is “Do what you’re told and you won’t get hurt.” And trust me, they enjoy hurting people. That’s why they sought the job.

                But a whole lot of them genuinely would prefer to have peaceful, reasonable interactions with people when possible. And a few even genuinely care about rights.

                More citations needed. In my experience cops don’t give a shit about anyone’s rights, because they face no consequences for ignoring them. And many are actively looking for an opportunity to escalate interactions with the public. After all, what’s the point in having the power to use violence without consequence if you don’t do it whenever possible?

              3. The only solution is to avoid them. Short of having a dead body and a damn good explanation, I can’t think of any reason to call the police.

              4. One thing I learned after listening to drunk cops talk shop is that they love to choke people. They get a big kick out of it. Having the power of life and death over someone, and the look on the person’s face when they realize that they’re dealing with someone who is looking for an excuse to kill them, is what gives them the most satisfaction from the job.

                Power is an end, not a means.

              5. “The fact is that most cops aren’t utter psychopaths.”

                I’m at the point where I might require supporting documentation for that assertion.

                1. Policing is vocational sociopathy.

              6. They all bear responsibility for the awful, disgusting police culture that has developed.

                “All”, maybe in some sense, but not “each”. Actually if it’s “all” in the collective sense, then none of them are responsible.

                Say you want to be a cop. I mean, somebody’s gotta do it, why shouldn’t it be you? If you disagree w the “culture”, it’s far more likely you’ll be kicked out than that the culture will. So I can’t blame cops for their “culture”.

                1. Robert, thanks for the Aushwitz Guard Defense. So, everyone is guilty and no one is guilty? Fuck individual moral accountability, right. Who dare expect there be any accountability in such an intimidating culture with an ingrained system of corruption. No one should demand these brave officers to swim against the tide in a cesspool. They all just have to go along to get along. They’re victims as much as the public they prey upon.

                  Robert, does that accurately sum up your thoughts.

              7. So then the good cops should have no problem being employed by individuals in a market, and not receive their salaries through extortion. Until then, they are the violent arm of the state, and nothing about their employment is based upon voluntary contracts and transactions by choice of an individual.

              8. better plan: rise up and push back, en masse, everywhere they pull this garbage. What if twenty people on that train shout out to the kid “don’t consent to a search”? And when the coppers do anyway, start chanting “bully bully bully”, flashing out the cell phones and running video recording. When they find the cash and the guy calmly explains what it is for, start shouting “probable cause” “get a warrant”, etc. These wimpy DEA agents would quickly melt into the woodwork and slither off. It is a lot like the incident in the New York subway years ago when a man was beaten to death with hundreds of people standing about watching the show and doing nothing. Or the three airliners the mozzies commandeered and the folks aboard just sat there and let them… contrasted with the one plane where those on board rose up and fought back. Yeah, that plane was crashed, too, but at least it did not crash into its occupied target. What might have happened if the passengers on the other three had decided “hell no, we won’t go” and fought back?

                of history will repeat itself? the General Warrants are here, now, as this young man learned. How much more will it take before WE THE PEOPLE will stand and draw that line?

                1. It is precisely the same situation. Go and learn what happened when about seventy armed civilians stood fast against three hundred British Soldiers at Lexington….. and again at Concord later the same day. The British mission was to disarm those colonials, and they knew it. They drew a line in the sand and some paid with their lives… this situation is no different than the British General Warrants that were carried about by the Regulars, and “gave them authority” to sop anyone, enter any place, look about, seize whatever they wished as “of military usefulness”, and walk off unscathed. Until Lexington and Concord. They’d had enough, and said NO MORE. How much worse to things need to get before that part

          2. I suspect it does not occur to someone who does not follow political media that simply having a suffciently “large” sum of cash on your person is treated as evidence of criminal activity in itself. That the authorities can take it without charging you with a crime is equally incomprehensible.

            1. I wonder if there’s even a legal way around this. Like, if you got an $18,000 cashier’s check to yourself cut, would that run you afoul of some IRS “money-structuring” clause? Since apparently that one’s unwinnable, given that you can be legally mugged for making deposits both in excess of and under $10,000.

              1. IANAL,but you probably would NOT run into IRS or even local police trouble. Large money transfers or cashier checks have to be REPORTED to the IRS by the bank,and even smaller amounts (under the $10K limit) get reported.

                Police probably would overlook a paper cashier’s check.
                they want easily confiscated assets,because they get to KEEP a large portion or even all of the confiscated money or assets. Police also could not legally cash the cashier’s check,unless you made it out to them. it’s not an easily grabbed asset.

                1. that large bank draft still CAN be siezed, and they have been. IRS can, and have, seized cash on deposit in bank accounts. It is almost certain that this man’s bank had reported the large withdrawal, but that does not prove the intent of the possession of the cash. THIS is why the Constitution contains the clause about presumed innocence. And sorry, stupid feds, no inanimate object can have innocence or guilt… it is neutral and must be used by a person. It is the PERSON who would have innocence or guilt, and until YOU establish guild in a court of law by a preponderance of the evidence presented, you have NO GROUNDS for seizing anyone’s property. Except on a warrant, which must present solid evidence indicating a crime has, on a more probable than not basis, occurred. And seeing a man sitting in a train and knowing nothing of his prior history is no evidence toward such a warrant.

                  I’d have demanded a warrant before any search. Then if they search anyway they are wrong. Also, demand an atrtorney.

                  1. THIS is why the Constitution contains the clause about presumed innocence.

                    I don’t know what copy of the Constitution you are referencing, but quick text search on the copy I reference, the Amendments (including the BoA) does not hit on “gui”, “inn”, and “presu”. So, the words “guilt”, “guilty”, “innocent”, “innocence”, “presume[d]”, and “presumption” are nowhere to be found.

                    So… what clause is that about “presumed innocence”?

                    1. Due Process Clause. You get an F- for reading comprehension, and for pretending to have read the document in order to shit on others for not reading the document.

        4. I think that in contesting the seizure, the consent could be used as evidence in favor of the money’s not being guilty, so it probably was a good idea to consent to the search.

          1. Strike fucking two, Robert. Yeah, because exercising one’s constitutional rights should reasonably be held against someone in some manner. Kind of difficult to challenge the search when one consents. Since when is giving up possible defenses a good idea.

            Robert says, “…so it probably was a good idea to consent to the search.” Translation- The man should expect some leniency for submitting to their authoritah. Does it help if the money was remorseful too? Perhaps explore the money’s troubling personal history that led to its criminality.

        5. If you consent you have no ability to challenge the evidence at a later date. The only way to suppress the search later is to refuse the search.

      2. Yet the Supreme Court upheld the practice, which is so clearly unconstitutional as to make the penaltax sound like a well-reasoned opinion.

        1. But think of all the money those icky people the government doesn’t like were using to fight the government! It would be a waste to let them pay lawyers and prolong the confiscatory process or even convince a jury to let them keep it! 3 generations of idiots are enough!

          1. Like I’ve said before, the last one hundred years has been one slow coup d’?at. With the court helping the process along as much as the other branches.

            1. coup d’?at

              Sounds like a great name for a French bistro

              1. Oops. But yes, I agree.

              2. nice catch. And yes, good name for a froggie bistro

        2. It’s the secret “Drugz R Bad” clause.

          1. You forgot the “mmmmkay?”.

        3. Reason had an artlcle explaining it 25 yrs. ago. It’s an ancient legal doctrine, so not surprising courts would uphold it, being they go by precedent.

          1. Yes, a doctrine that is being widely abused and is obviously in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the constitution.

      3. No one believes that.

        +1 doublethink

      4. I for one am glad they arrested this illegal money before it had the chance to committ further crimes. /sarc

        There was no racial aspect of the DEA singling him out on the train. The DEA was probably tipped off by the guys bank.

        Then I am curious as to why he was on the train and not the plane ? Airsick ? Sure, maybe. Fear of flying ? Also maybe.

        Fear of the TSA finding the money ? Maybe so ?

      5. It was the law at the time of the adoption of the US & state constitutions, so it’s presumed to be incorporated by their due process provisions.

        1. What was never explained was how the sovereign’s ownership, even if temporary, of the thing expiated the thing’s guilt. If the money is guilty, it should have to be destroyed.

    3. That this person was able to say this with a straight face is in itself an admission of evil.

    4. They don’t actually believe it, but it allows them to steal with impunity. So for them, it’s all good.

    5. Everybody loves a deodand.

    6. “…the money is presumed to be guilty.”

      If there was ever any doubt that this is Kafka’s world, and we’re just living in it, it’s that line right there.

    7. Not sure I think they believe it. I AM sure they believe that it’s all they need to say, though.

  3. When I rise to power, this will be charge number 5,694 in the trial of DEA personnel.

    And, we will do their trial following their Alice in Wonderland rules: punishment first, trial afterwards.

    So they will go to the boats first, and be tried after their agonizing monthlong demise.

    1. ^^^This

    2. Tarran for president! Or, y’know, whatever.

      Maybe we should send them through the Thunderdome first. And then scaphe the last one standing.

    3. Why not, they’re running under Cardassian rules already.

      http://en.memory-alpha.org/wik…..isprudence

  4. They got to Rivers, who told him he was going to shoot a music video and agreed to let them search his stuff.

    How is it possible that there are still people who don’t know this is a bad idea?

    1. If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to fear…..unless you have something of value, then it will be stolen.

      1. If you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything of value, and you’re willing to absorb a good amount of physical abuse, then repeat after me…’FUCK OFF, SLAVER!”

      2. What really gets me is how often people who aren’t doing anything wrong just go along with searches. Even assuming that there is nothing that they could possibly do to you or steal from you (which we all know is never the case), it’s still a big pain in the ass, they will probably make a mess and not clean it up and if you know you don’t have anything to hide, a search will not help with any security or law enforcement goals.

        1. If you refuse to consent, they’re going to search you anyway. You have just defied them, and now you will be punished. They could detain you until they get a dog to sniff around or they could arrest you for pissing them off and then search you, then drop the charges after you sit in jail for a couple days. They could just search you anyway and on the report say you consented.

          1. Smart phone, hit ‘record’ which uploads video/audio automatically to cloud.

            1. “Hold on while I..”

              *smash*

              “.. um, never mind.”

              1. Or, do so before they ever get to you, like when they first board the train. And then let them know it automatically uploads offsite, so it can’t be deleted. They’ll still get pissed, but you’ll have some protection or at least recourse after the fact.

              2. The many videos on Youtube of interactions with police would appear to indicate that that is at least not universal.
                I am at least a bit more optimistic about that. Recording cops does seem to be becoming a popular pastime. Yeah it annoys them. But many do seem to be figuring out that people are allowed to record things in public.
                Of course, they face no real consequences when they do stop people recording. But I’m going to be a little optimistic today, damn it!

                1. I’m going to be a little optimistic today, damn it!

                  I can feel your pessimism growing inside you! Give in to your cynical feelings, boy!

                  1. Soon, Zeb’s journey to the Dark Side will be complete!

                2. The many videos on Youtube of interactions with police would appear to indicate that that is at least not universal.

                  I don’t like cops much, but sarcasmic is a hysterical asstard when it comes to this kind of shit.

          2. Indeed. Refusing to consent to a search is probable cause for a search without a warrant.

            Kinda like running away from the cops is probably cause for being arrested and killed by cops.

            1. I successfully ran away from the cops once, and lived and did not get caught. Probably helped that they had no idea who I was.

              I was at a party and something happened that led to a fight. I’m guessing that tequila was the thing that happened because a friend of mine and some other folks were drinking a lot of it and were pretty drunk.

              Next thing I knew, my friend and another guy were face to face yelling at each other and next thing I knew punches were flying. I sort of faded into the crowd as some people gathered around the fight. I went outside.

              I was asking some people who also went outside if they knew what happened when a guy walked up and told me that the neighbors had called the cops. Then my friend who was in the fight came outside and walked up to me. He was bleeding pretty badly from his arm, which I later found out was due to his fist going through a window during the fight. He started trying to explain to me what happened and I just said tell me later, I’m out of here, someone called the cops.

              I started walking through the back yard and the next thing I know, I heard someone say ‘Hey, you, come here!’. I looked back and saw 3 cops walking around the side of the house. In a moment of wisdom I decided to run. So I ran through the neighbors yard and ducked behind a storage shed.

              1. I was peeking out from behind it and I saw a flashlight on a tree right beside me, so I ducked back in. I peeked out from behind the other side and saw the cops looking around, but not in my general direction now, so I took off down an alley and made a left toward the river. I made it down there and escaped. It was quite an adrenalin rush to have escaped the cops like that.

                That was 30 years ago. No way I would try that now.

                1. Really, my reasoning was, I can outrun these fat cops and it will be fun. The thought never occurred to me that they might shoot me, because back then, something like that was unheard of, unless you were fleeing a bank robbery or murder.

                2. One night I was at a friend’s place drinking and playing guitar, when he just got up and said “Let’s go, it’ll be quick” so I gave him a ride. Little did I know, he was going to go steal a hammock. He had me park, went out into the darkness, then rushed into the car saying “Go, go, go!” I went. I second later I saw the blue lights, so I really went. I flew down a winding road to where he lived, which his driveway was just off of. I skidded in and killed the lights, and just then the blues rushed past. I have no doubt that we both would have been beaten up badly had he caught up to us.
                  That was 20 years ago.

              2. “Next thing I knew, my friend and another guy were face to face yelling at each other and next thing I knew punches were flying. I sort of faded into the crowd as some people gathered around the fight. I went outside.”

                Your idea of friendship and mine are significantly different.

                1. Oh, you mean I should have jumped into the fray and double teamed the other guy? In this case, my friend was being a total asshole, he was drunker than shit and had also been arguing with me earlier. He was also one of the biggest guys I knew. There was no need to get involved in that shit.

                  The reason he came out of the house and tried to talk to me was because by that time, he had started to realize that he was being a dick. He called me to apologize the next day. But then he also had his girlfriend call me and try to explain how it was all the other guys fault, which I really didn’t believe.

                  1. Enh, part of being a good friend is choking your buddy down when he’s being a drunken ass.

              3. You make a terrible wing man.

                1. I agree, horrible wingman that runs away when shit gets ugly….. Isn’t there another word for that???

          3. As I say above, that is not universally true. But it only gets more true the more people just consent to unreasonable searches.
            The things you describe can and do happen way too much. But it isn’t universally the way it works.
            Letting them search makes it too easy for them to do searches. If it becomes a more time consuming process, they will have to use more discretion. They may love fucking with you, but they don’t love paperwork.

          4. Exercising civil liberties is probable cause.

        2. I had my car searched once. They didn’t mess anything up and let me off with a warning. I got lucky. I’d never let a cop search my car now. No telling what they’d plant.

          1. In the late 90s, if you were a teenager with Texas plates and got stopped in Louisiana, your best bet was to roll over and do what the cop asked. Yeah, I was “driving distracted” after the cruiser pulled up next to me, then dropped back and started tailgating me. Fuckers.

            1. They got their asses burned over that. The Texas, Mississippi governors called Mike Foster and said they were going to issue warnings to their citizens to avoid Louisiana. Heads rolled.

              1. After the news in Houston did an expose where they trolled i-10 with rental cars with various state plates, but it was well known in the 90s that you’d be a fool to have contraband in your car and drive the highways of LA with Texas plates.

    2. I get what you’re saying, but I really can’t blame people for not wanting to piss off cops, especially Feds. No cooperating just means they’ll find another way to fuck with you and then conduct the search anyway.

      Like I’m sure one of the brave DEA agents would have suddenly detected the smell of marijuana in the bag and used that as probable cause for a search. In this scenario the end result is the same in that he’s still out the money but he probably also lands in a cage with a resisting arrest charge, assuming they don’t beat him to death first.

      1. Yeah, fuck that. Be polite, but you have to draw a line somewhere. Shit is bad, but law enforcement dicks deal with people asserting this right all the time. They will get a warrant if they can be bothered. But odds are decent that they won’t.

        1. Why do they need a warrant when they can just lie and say you consented? Unless you’ve got hard video and audio proving otherwise, they’ll get away with it. And if there is proof that they lied, the absolute worst thing that might happen is that the case is dropped. Nothing will happen to them. It’s their job to lie. Everyone except the vast majority of people who never come into contact with law enforcement knows this.

          1. It does happen. I don’t know how often, but people do successfully decline to be searched sometimes.
            You have to try. That’s what I’m going with today.

            1. I refused a search once. The guy got very tough and tried to threaten all sorts of things including bringing a K-9 unit. I said “do whatever you have to, but I do not consent.” He gave me a ticket for something I didn’t do and left, very pissed off.

    3. What’s the point of saying no? You know as well as I do that if he’d said no, they would’ve had a drug dog out there, the drug dog would’ve “alerted”, and they would’ve done the search that way. Except now the cops would be pissed off.

      1. The point of saying “no” is that you have the right to say no. What’s the point of openly carrying rifles on a city street? At least make them go through the motions and remind them that some people know their rights. And you never know. You might luck out and be dealing with the rare cop who does genuinely respect due process and the 4th amendment. They do exist. And the more people who assert their rights, the less they can get away with disregarding them.

        But the best way to be is just to avoid all official interactions with police. That’s my approach. Because the danger is always there.

      2. There is court precedent now that you do not have to wait for them to drive a drug dog in.

      3. If everyone said no, then the judge would want to know what the agents were doing wrong.

        1. not necessarily. many judges are not that curious or worthy of their office.

    4. Public schools?

    5. See above. They could detain his stuff even without searching it. This way at least he lost only his $, not his clothes too.

    6. How many victims do the government schools crank out each year? NONE of them have any clue as to what the Constitution says, the conditions the Founders endured that gave rise to it (particularly the Bill of Rights), or the corruption of government forces.

  5. If only the Ascended One knew of these travesties…

    1. Maybe when he reads about it in the paper.

      1. It’s not as if we can expect him to know what is going on in the massive organization that he is tasked with managing. Thank God we have journalists to put all the government press releases together.

    2. It was my assumption that the “Lightworker” already knew….but like all deities lets bad things happen to good people…..just cause!

      1. It’s because we don’t believe in him deeply enough!

    3. Eric Holder made a weak pretense of doing something about it. What more do you want?

      1. A slow painful death for the aforementioned instead of a 7 figure sinecure in the private sector.

  6. Sooo… when are guns going to be “presumed to be guilty.”, or cars, or toasters..

    1. Well, cars are ‘presumed to be guilty’ all the time and get seized on a regular basis. Toasters aren’t big-ticket enough. Guns…..don’t give them any ideas.

      1. some idiot politician I think it was King just last week said anyone who buys a pressure cooker should be investigated. you know because someone once made a bomb out of one. based on that all pipes should be illegal.

    2. When the Federal Pawn Shop gets up and running.

      Until then, it is just to hard to convert those things into cash.

  7. They racially profiled the shit out of that money. It’s not easy being green.

  8. Boats, schmoats. I would have them flayed alive and burned at the stake. Their compatriots would be assembled at the place of execution, so that they might observe, and learn.

    1. Boats, schmoats. I would have them flayed alive and burned at the stake.

      They really don’t deserve your mercy, Mr Books. Your kinder gentler method of execution is wasted on them.

    2. I hear Ramsey Bolton is looking for a job, might be a good fit in your administration.

      1. I wouldn’t wish that on even the most hardened of drug warriors.

        (hate him so much…)

        1. Well then you don’t get to lead the revolution because Ramsey Bolting is exactly what these evil pigfuckers deserve.

      2. “Ramsey Bolton”

        Michael Bolton’s husband?

  9. Why do they never publish the name of the agent who pulled this shit?

    I’d love to hear morning radio shows call the DEA office and get the asshole who stole that money on the horn and ask him how he lives with himself.

    My guess is that the statement by Waite would seem to be positively wonderful compared to what agent Asshole would say.

  10. How long until gofundme determines that funds for victims of these kinds of takings are against the site’s TOS?

    1. Why would they stop it? I’m sure they are keeping an eye on the account so they know when this kid’s money has been restored so they can go confiscate it again.

  11. “We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Waite said. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”

    I’m glad the DEA is doing its part in the war against cash. We can’t have people running around making untraceable purchases. It’s for the children.

  12. How long until gofundme determines that funds for victims of these kinds of takings are against the site’s TOS?

    His Ascendedness recently proclaimed an executive order making it illegal to offer aid to those he deems unpersons, so… soon.
    “Nice business ya gots here, mister GoFundMe. It would be a tragedy if sumpthin wuz ta happen to it.”

    1. That won’t happen. You think they had anything against this guy? They just wanted his $.

  13. Your kinder gentler method of execution is wasted on them.

    I’m kind of impatient.

  14. agents look for “indicators” such as whether the person bought an expensive one-way ticket with cash

    *** looks at “Federal Reserve Note” ***

    “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE”

    1. That, like the Fifth Amendment, has a part written in invisible ink.

      1. do mimes get the same protection?

        1. Of course. A mime is a terrible thing to waste.

          1. *** resists urge ***

  15. It’s good work, if you can get it.

  16. agents look for “indicators” such as … if the person is traveling from or to a city known as a hot spot for drug activity

    FTFY

    1. indicators also include if the person breathes and/or has money or valuable property.

    2. that’s what i LOL’d at – will the DEA publish a list of cities that are not hotspots? the train depots were Dearborn, MI and LA. there’s absolutely nothing inherently suspicious about that route, especially when you consider how expensive the flight is. what the DEA is basically saying is that if either your departure or arrival is to a city with more than 200K people, which has got to be like 80% of all inter-state routes , we get to do whatever we want.

  17. My roomate’s sister makes $65 hourly on the laptop . She has been laid off for six months but last month her payment was $16050 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    check out the post right here ???????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. Tell your roommate’s sister to stay off the interstates in major cities.

  18. ..and these motherfuckers still consider themselves lawmen.

    -jcr

    1. Of course, because they ARE the law!

  19. Seems to me that this shit is going to be a major force driving the widespread adoption of Bitcoin.

    -jcr

    1. do you take the time to initial all posts for verification- or is that a fancy script you have going on there?

      -sss

      1. I type really fast.

        -jcr

  20. “”We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Waite said. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.””

    A leading contender for Authoritarian Asshole of the Year, so far.

    *hobbles away, holding kicked nuts*

  21. It’s armed robbery 101. So long as they only rob niggers citizens won’t notice or complain. And if citizens eventually do notice and complain… “well, we’ve always done it this way…”.

    1. don’t forget illegal immigrants and other brown peoples.

  22. OT – Drunken falls cause more deaths than drunken driving in Wisconsin

    http://host.madison.com/news/l…..z3Zqm8N1BL

    1. EAP,

      Did the study take into account that the Packers epic collapse might have skewed the results?

      How many of them leaped off their couches when Bostick fucked up the onside kick and crashed right through the floor of their double-wide? Most of those guys would have made it except that their can of paint thinner was still back on the coffee table and you just can’t expect them to last without that.

      1. Too soon bro.

        1. Never too soon for Packer Backer tears.

          Too bad Santorum is from PA and isn’t a Packer fan. If his kid was wearing a Brett Favre jersey while conceding, those tears would have had miraculous powers.

    2. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES!

      1. “it’s time to feed the hogs.”

        a great book,a must-read,IMO.

    3. And if you think the drunken falls are bad in Wisconsin, check out the drunken winters!

    4. Its the combination of booze and icy sidewalks, etc.

      Trust me on this. I used to live there.

      1. I just RTFA and you are wrong. Drunken Fall Deaths are due to – wait for it – NOT ENOUGH GOVERNMENT!

        Sherman said one reason is a Wisconsin population that carries its drinking habits as it ages. She said older people are already at risk from falls and adding alcohol or alcohol in combination with drugs or medications only adds to the problems.

        “When I hear about happy hours in retirement communities I get worried,” said Sherman. “With the population aging, it’s an area we haven’t looked closely enough at.”

        So if it is just the seniors drinking it up and croaking, what is wrong with that? Sounds like an awesome way to fix the Social Security issue.

        1. Here in Taiwan, it’s drunken typhoons that are the problem. Tequila and typhoons don’t mix well.

      2. I just RTFA and you are wrong. Drunken Fall Deaths are due to – wait for it – NOT ENOUGH GOVERNMENT!

        Sherman said one reason is a Wisconsin population that carries its drinking habits as it ages. She said older people are already at risk from falls and adding alcohol or alcohol in combination with drugs or medications only adds to the problems.

        “When I hear about happy hours in retirement communities I get worried,” said Sherman. “With the population aging, it’s an area we haven’t looked closely enough at.”

        So if it is just the seniors drinking it up and croaking, what is wrong with that? Sounds like an awesome way to fix the Social Security issue.

        1. I hear NOT ENOUGH GOVERNMENT cause double posts too!

          1. See what happens when you let the market provide posts? You get chaos!

            We need a cabinet level department in the fed gov to manage proper posting in blogs.

          2. Because government is in charge of squirrel control?

        2. They just need designated wheelchair pushers.

    5. MADD changes name to Mothers Against Drunk Diving.

    6. Clearly we need to ban drinking and walking.

  23. Civil forfeiture tactics are increasingly making the news.

    Perhaps. But I am (really) shocked by the level of ignorance about forfeiture, even among people that I thought *should* know (e.g, CFL members).

    1. Teams of the Canadian Football League? Components of compact fluorescent lamps?

  24. They wouldn’t say much but insisted Rivers hadn’t been racially profiled:

    No, he was financially profiled. The perps figured he wouldn’t be able to afford litigation to get his money back.

    -jcr

    1. Well if he wasn’t racially profiled, there’s no problem. Financial profiling is just another name for taxation, and that’s the government’s job right?

  25. I must have missed the tweets from the White House account about how this is inexcusable and that the administration will be looking into this immediately.

    1. “Oh, very well. I take full responsibility.”

      1. I wish I could be held similarly ‘fully responsible’ if I did something criminal.

        Oh yeah, that, I take full responsibility for that. Gotta go, I’ve got a tee time to make.

  26. Every dollar confiscated by those who keep us secure and comfy gets tossed in that wonderful chest of social justice and praise Jesus. The returns are practically revelatory if you love god or gov. Nigga likely approves of the rich getting soaked by the fucking government yet when it’s his turn he gets all uppity.

  27. Give that DEA office a break. They recently lost two very good men to nazis in the desert.

    1. “They recently lost two very good men”

      Oh no. They lost BOTH of them?

      Who let both good DEA agents work together on something? They should have been kept separate the way the President and Vice President are when traveling to things.

      1. Brendan, you’re operating under the mistaken assumption that the DEA didn’t pair the only two good men together intentionally. And then placed an anonymous phone call to these desert nazis to remove the agency of their troublesome morals.

        1. Oh shit, you’re right. The (invisibly) thin blue line strikes again.

          Your post needs more passive voice.
          Calls were made, people were betrayed, backup was delayed.

          (I didn’t realize that rhymed until I was done.)

  28. The only role racial profiling plays in cases like these is that blacks aren’t as likely to successfully buck the system to get their money back. Otherwise this is just about finding the cash.

    It’s the flip side of walking down a dark alley with a Rolex on.

  29. Look at this asshole’s LinkedIn. What’s hilarious is that his “Education” line is set to “Georgetown University”. Gee, what a distinguished pig, right?

    Except if you scroll down you’ll see the “education” he got at Georgetown was a Certificate in Forensic Accounting. His undergrad was apparently in Health Science and Physical Therapy at California State University, Northridge.

    1. Forensic Accounting Final Exam

      Which one of these people is most likely to be carrying large sums of cash? Please explain your conclusion and detail your preferred method for obtaining it.

      1. I don’t think the final exam requires that anyone show their work.

      2. Forensic Accounting Final Exam

        Please write your credit card information and mailing address below.

    2. Linkedin sets the top education line to your more recent chronological entry in the education section. It’s not choosable.

      1. Fair enough.

  30. I for one am glad the rand Paul is trying to get a bill passed to give us some protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

    I wonder why it took over 200 years for someone to finally think of this.

    1. This particular seizure method was pioneered in the 80’s as part of the WOD.

  31. OT: Dude takes selfie at store, receives Facebook anti-pedo death threats

    A Melbourne mother, mistakenly believing that a guy was photographing her kids in a shopping centre, snapped a photo of him as he was “taking off” (also known as simply leaving a Target store).

    On 6 May, she posted the photo to Facebook with her description of the encounter with the “creep”, saying that he’d been reported to management and police and that he’d be charged if he turned out to be a registered sex offender.

    After hundreds of shares, the news of his public shaming finally reached the so-called “creep”, who turns out to have been publicly maligned over innocent behavior.

    By the time the post was shared 20,000 times, he had received death threats and was considering his legal options, he told Daily Mail Australia under condition of anonymity.

    1. So, where’s the shaming campaign for the idiot mother?

      1. Something something… “FOR THE CHILDREN”… mumble mumble… “unintended consequences”…

    2. HOW DARE YOU BE IN PROXIMITY TO MY CHILDREN, YOU MAN YOU!!!

      *Crushkilldestroy Mode Activated*

  32. where’s the shaming campaign for the idiot mother?

    SHE’S A HERO, YOU BABYRAPE APOLOGIST!111

  33. So basically the law legitimizes the DEA has highway train robbers.

    That’s all they are. Thieves. Naked fucking thieves.

    Also. There’s no legal mechanism by which this kid can get his money back – other than suing?

  34. Wow. Something very, very weird just happened to the format of this page. Also- “preview” is no more.

    1. Squirrel separatists loosely aligned with ISIS!!!!!!!!11

      1. Islamofacisquirrels strike at 2PM! Ok, so they were 10 minutes late. The being on time shit is an American culture thing, an evil concoction of the patriarchy.

    2. Who bothers with preview when you have an asterisk?

  35. So, how did the terrorist attack go? Am I the only one who is still alive?

    1. Yes.

      Don’t break your glasses.

      1. +5 trip to the Twilight Zone

  36. What are Paul and Walberg thinking, trying to write a statute that codifies rights already protected by an amendment to the constitution? Don’t they know that such a thing is unnecessary and confusing?

  37. I find it interesting that its republicans who are trying to limit asset forfeiture while the dems who care love it

  38. You have to call civil asset forfeiture what it is: extortion and theft. You cannot possibly see it otherwise. It’s like the highway robbers in old Europe. Bandits stop a traveller on the road and take all his money. When the victim goes to the report the crime to local law enforcement, who does he see behind the desk? The person who led the gang of robbers!

    The line between government activity and criminal activity has always been fairly narrow. The interesting development now is that government officials have erased the line, and they do not care at all how brazen they appear. Some officials care, but the actual thieves do not.

  39. “…He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance…”

  40. I have a natural right to control my own body, so the war on drugs is a violation of that natural right.

    In addition, the quaint document, the US Constitution, does not give government authority to tell citizens what they can and cannot put into their body.

    Recall that when the progressives wanted to stop people from drinking alcohol, they had to pass a Constitution amendment.

    No such amendment exists for any drugs such as marijuana, LSD, or cocaine

    Therefore the war on drugs is not only a violation of our natural right but un Constitutional.

    1. Of course. This is a point I make often. But here’s the thing: In the 1930s, people at least pretended to still follow the constitution, now the government does whatever the hell they want.

  41. “They wouldn’t say much but insisted Rivers hadn’t been racially profiled:”

    Because racism is bad, mkay.

    But being robbed the the government is perfectly ok.

  42. This is basic criminal activity by government agents. We must remember that just because an ill-informed or totally corrupt Congress passes a law, that doesn’t make it right. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was passed by Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1852. That didn’t make it right. The law does not equal justice.

    For, possibly, interesting reading go to The Myth of Inalienable Rights (dowehaverights.blogspot.com) and scroll down to the addenda: Crimes, Organized Crimes, and Criminals.

  43. Not to be picky, but his gofundme.com and elsewhere, says it is 16k, not 18k. Just so you know.

  44. I am an expert and a very old weed farmer having available excellent quality medical marijuana and cannabis oil
    for cancer cure ,back pain,appetite, sleeping,anxiety, stress,depression and mental disorder etc…
    I am a dispensary owner with multiple licenses. I’m allowed over
    10 pounds in my possession.I am looking to supply the best strains
    to anyone who wants grade AAA meds. .Contact (816)-384-7475 …email : mniista752@gmail.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.