Be Careful with U.S. Customs -- A Cautionary Tale

[john61ct]

Both Secret Service and FBI agents have been caught stealing Bitcoins too

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1D804H

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Fixer

When I worked on a Narcotics Taskforce we routinely confiscated assets from known drug dealers - yes, sometimes without charging them with a crime. Seizing their cash, cars and homes was at times far more effective than just arresting them.

So you get to be judge and jury and lawmaker. Is that not contrary to your constitution ?

Sounds more like fascism than a democracy or a republic

[TrentePieds]

Hm.. I thot combining those three functions is in the best tradition of "The West" according to John Wayne and Clint Eastwood? Isn't anybody paying attention to The Turner Thesis any more :-)?

TP

[406Columbia]

Originally Posted by Fixer

A shoplifter need only conceal the item (demonstrating intent to steal) while still in the store to be criminally charged.

When I worked on a Narcotics Taskforce we routinely confiscated assets from known drug dealers - yes, sometimes without charging them with a crime. Seizing their cash, cars and homes was at times far more effective than just arresting them.

Thankfully, the men and women with whom I worked were ethical and I never saw the system abused.

Never abused the system? Civil asset forfeiture cannot in my understanding ever be more effective than criminal asset forfeiture. Unless you mean less work for the LEO. If someone is genuinely guilty of some crime why would they not be changed with it? I will assume your narcotics taskforce was looking for more than dime bags on the street, so why would it not behoove us as a community to make an arrest and compile evidence for real convictions?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Fixer

...When I worked on a Narcotics Taskforce we routinely confiscated assets from known drug dealers - yes, sometimes without charging them with a crime. Seizing their cash, cars and homes was at times far more effective than just arresting them.

Thankfully, the men and women with whom I worked were ethical and I never saw the system abused.

You’ve just defined how an authoritarian regime operates. No due process, no recourse for the people you deem to be worthy of your “effective” actions. This statement of yours, more than anything else written here, affirms the concern many of us have that we are rapidly sliding into a totalitarian state.

[406Columbia]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

So you get to be judge and jury and lawmaker. Is that not contrary to your constitution ?

Sounds more like fascism than a democracy or a republic

My thoughts exactly. When is it ever more effective? Seems like collection of evidence and the traditional rule of law is more of a hindrance, easier to just seize the property and not charge the criminal. Wouldn't want the LEO to have to do the tiresome job off evidence collection and write reports would we. What a burden!

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Fixer

A shoplifter need only conceal the item (demonstrating intent to steal) while still in the store to be criminally charged.

When I worked on a Narcotics Taskforce we routinely confiscated assets from known drug dealers - yes, sometimes without charging them with a crime. Seizing their cash, cars and homes was at times far more effective than just arresting them.

Thankfully, the men and women with whom I worked were ethical and I never saw the system abused.

Taking someone's assets, even those of a "known drug dealer" without due process of law is in itself abuse of the system and to the best of my knowledge, an illegal act as well.

How effective it is does not justify action. The end does not justify the means.

Rationalizing this kind of action is a classic example of starting down a slippery slope.

[TJ D]

I just want to pass on my observation and thanks to everyone in this discussion.

This has been one of the most civil, enlightened exchanges of a controversial topic that I can recall on CF.

I'm also heartened to see that, with just a couple of exceptions, that everyone here still has a very clear view of what freedom means and the role of government should be.



Well done, friends. It's hard not to get gloomy at times about the current state of things, and it's gratifying to see that there are still a lot of folks out there who hold dear some of the bedrock principles of a free society.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Fixer

When I worked on a Narcotics Taskforce we routinely confiscated assets from known drug dealers - yes, sometimes without charging them with a crime. Seizing their cash, cars and homes was at times far more effective than just arresting them.

Originally Posted by skipmac

Rationalizing this kind of action is a classic example of starting down a slippery slope.

A slippery slope, indeed.
What exactly constitutes a "known drug dealer" ?
How about a funky-looking musician who is travelling with a PA speaker in his car that has $91K hidden in it?
Aw hell yes! Everyone knows musicians are into drugs and only criminals hide their cash, right? Drug dealer it is. Ding ding!
Never mind that Phil Parhamovich earned that cash by remodelling houses and was on his way to purchase a recording studio. I'm sure the Wyoming cops that pulled him over thought that seizing his cash was "far more effective than just arresting him".
Now, if he WAS actually arrested for some crime, then he would be entitled to many rights including being innocent until proven guilty and a burden of proof by the prosecution that needs to be Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. BUT- here is where the government scam comes in: if they don't even CHARGE a crime, then the case becomes a CIVIL one, with a much weaker burden of proof on the prosecution. The civil case will be something like "The State of Wyoming versus Ninety One Thousand and Four hundred Dollars". No joke. Add a bunch of delays and expensive court appearances, and with luck the innocent musician might get an offer to get a PORTION of his cash back.

This is just a terrible, broken, corrupt system, Fixer.
No matter how many real "bad guys" are taken down with this unconstitutional practice, it is not justified as there are thousands of innocent victims.
Indefensible.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...vil-forfeiture

[406Columbia]

Originally Posted by cyan

A slippery slope, indeed.
What exactly constitutes a "known drug dealer" ?
How about a funky-looking musician who is travelling with a PA speaker in his car that has $91K hidden in it?
Aw hell yes! Everyone knows musicians are into drugs and only criminals hide their cash, right? Drug dealer it is. Ding ding!
Never mind that Phil Parhamovich earned that cash by remodelling houses and was on his way to purchase a recording studio. I'm sure the Wyoming cops that pulled him over thought that seizing his cash was "far more effective than just arresting him".
Now, if he WAS actually arrested for some crime, then he would be entitled to many rights including being innocent until proven guilty and a burden of proof by the prosecution that needs to be Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. BUT- here is where the government scam comes in: if they don't even CHARGE a crime, then the case becomes a CIVIL one, with a much weaker burden of proof on the prosecution. The civil case will be something like "The State of Wyoming versus Ninety One Thousand and Four hundred Dollars". No joke. Add a bunch of delays and expensive court appearances, and with luck the innocent musician might get an offer to get a PORTION of his cash back.

This is just a terrible, broken, corrupt system, Fixer.
No matter how many real "bad guys" are taken down with this unconstitutional practice, it is not justified as there are thousands of innocent victims.
Indefensible.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...vil-forfeiture

Agreed 100%

[transmitterdan]

What we see or read about in "breaking news stories" represents a tiny fraction of real life in the US. LEOs are not all aggressive money grubbing thugs. The US is not a police state. But we have to acknowledge that when something is wrong it needs illumination by the media. The forfeiture process is the result of true criminals who manage time and again to escape justice using all the rights and benefits of the US system. Out of sheer frustration these procedures were designed to put a dent in drug and human trafficking and they have done a lot of good. Many lives have been saved. But we don't read about that.

What we have to decide as a society is how much liberty we are willing to give up to get more safety for our selves and our kids. Without LEOs we would get anarchy controlled by true thugs. So let's restrain the idea that law enforcement is nothing but thugs looking for their next victim. That's not fair.

The solution to this problem need not be complex or expensive. A simple requirement that there be a due and speedy process for resolving forfeiture cases may be what is needed. Real criminals will not want to appear in front of a judge. Some of you may have better ideas how to make the process more fair. Let's focus on that and less on the totally wrong notion that the US is a scary police state. It is not.

[john61ct]

Not just your perception, but the reality of whether or not police are "on your side" or not, depends very much on your race, gender / CIS or not, economic status, mental health - including relationship to substance abuse, immigration status, English abilities, political activities etc and location, your community's attitudes toward these various attributes and the degree to which its government exercises effective control over the police.

To not even perceive the cops as a dangerous threat means that you fit into a very privileged demographic that you may consider "mainstream" but these days may find is a relatively small minority.

The whole war on drugs was created in the first place to persecute young radicals seeking to end America's militarism and minorities fighting for basic civil rights. And continues to be used that way to this day.

Just as the "Muslim terrorism" bogeyman has been created and continues to be amplified by our government's very intentional policies and activities overseas.

Eisenhower tried to warn us about letting the military-industrial complex dominate our political economic system. The reality in which we find ourselves is now far far beyond the most extreme nightmare he could have imagined.

And all trends point to things getting worse for all but the top .x% of the population that benefits the most from this state of affairs.
And most of **them** blissfully and wilfully oblivious of their complicity. Privilege indeed.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by markpierce

As a US citizen/resident, all my many international travels on common carriers (buses, planes, and ships), custom forms were distributed to passengers to complete while in transit to be turned over upon arrival to the country, and not before travel began. Customs screening took place at the customs offices at international ports, borders, and airports upon entry; not departure.

Yes, that's right. But that is just because in ORDINARY cases there is no customs or immigration inspection when you DEPART the U.S. But hat doesn't mean that leaving the U.S. has no significance. Immigration is done, for departing non-citizens, via a form called the I-94. Since we haven't had (in my memory) a passport control point for departing passengers (unlike most countries), you used to give the I-94 form to the gate agent as you got on the plane. The gate agent was delegated this function. Now it's electronic.

But for both citizens and non-citizens alike -- if you have something to declare to customs -- and there are various things you might need to declare, and not just cash -- it's your responsibility to find a customs agent and file whatever form is required and submit yourself to whatever questions or examination is required or which they decide to do. And you have to do this in the international airport from which you are actually leaving the country.

Good thing to keep in mind for anyone who flies out with cash or anything else which needs to be declared. Although after reading a number of these civil asset forfeiture cases, I don't think I will ever, ever again carry cash out of the U.S. If I need cash for something, I'll wire it to some country with more reasonable laws and more reasonable law enforcement culture, and withdraw it there.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Not just your perception, but the reality of whether or not police are "on your side" or not, depends very much on your race, gender / CIS or not, economic status, mental health - including relationship to substance abuse, immigration status, English abilities, political activities etc and location, your community's attitudes toward these various attributes and the degree to which its government exercises effective control over the police.

To not even perceive the cops as a dangerous threat means that you fit into a very privileged demographic that you may consider "mainstream" but these days may find is a relatively small minority.. . .

That's right. I am from a privileged background, and my politics are more on the right, and so I really never understood any of this from anything I read or heard my peers talking about. The whole thing about "driving while black" sounded to me like some bogus whining. UNTIL I had a black colleague and close friend in my law firm, a brilliant lawyer, Harvard Law School, clerked on the Supreme Court, who decided to move into a mostly white affluent suburb in the city where we were working together, and buy himself a really flash car (because he grew up in Harlem and had never had a car). Although his white neighbors were extremely welcoming, and the city itself was governed by majority black people, with a black mayor, the POLICE harassed him incessantly -- he got stopped every few days driving home in his flash car to his nice house, and was often questioned aggressively. EVEN BY BLACK COPS. I couldn't believe it! This guy considered himself privileged (as indeed he was, at the top of the legal profession) and would never complain about anything, but his life was made hell by the cops in our town, just because they couldn't imagine why a black guy would be driving a flash car in a nice, mostly white neighborhood -- must be up to no good! JUST LIKE our poor Mr. Kazazai with his life savings in cash. Eventually he started leaving his car at home and started taking taxis, just to avoid this.

It's culture. We let our LEO's behave aggressively towards people they just have any kind of hunch, no matter how misinformed, may be up to no good. Driving While Black, I was amazed to discover, really exists, and it is just one aspect of this whole thing.

[Aldous Snow]

It baffles me how many people try to board an aircraft with bags of cash and/or handguns. Regardless of how you feel about the law, it's been around for a long time.