Woman stopped at airport with $46,950 sues DEA

[jba]

interesting article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/06/23/woman_stopped_at_logan_with_46950_sues_dea/) re: carrying large amounts of cash on airplanes.

I can't help but think you'll have less problems if you are not hispanic. Maybe I'm just cynical.

[canis582]

Your tax dollars at work.

[Yeknom58]

I'm not really seeing the case here..this is so super easy to prove/disprove.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really seeing the case here..this is so super easy to prove/disprove.

[/ QUOTE ]

not sure what you mean

If she is able to show that she sold stores or whatever, she keeps the cash?

[youtalkfunny]

"(A) spokesman for the DEA...said that federal asset forfeiture laws allow agents to seize suspected drug profits."

There's some due process for ya.

[Jeffage]

If the money is truly legitimate, there should be plenty of documentation of where it came from. If she can provide this, I assume the money will be returned. Carrying large amounts of cash in and of itself is not illegal.

Jeff

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
If the money is truly legitimate, there should be plenty of documentation of where it came from. If she can provide this, I assume the money will be returned. Carrying large amounts of cash in and of itself is not illegal.

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

Shes not guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof should be with law enforcement, not her. The drug war is an excuse to take away civil liberties.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
If the money is truly legitimate, there should be plenty of documentation of where it came from. If she can provide this, I assume the money will be returned. Carrying large amounts of cash in and of itself is not illegal.

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

I think like rarely works out to be that clean. If the feds are suspecting laundered money I'm not sure how proving the money is legit proves anything. think about it: you buy some convenience store, sell it for $50k, withdraw to cash, now for the next six months you're all set to make drug/cash runs with documentation of where this $50k came from.

notice this happened in february, and we're just seeing a lawsuit being filed four months later. I'm sure she's been trying to get it back.

(just to be clear I definitely view this as a violation of civil liberties, but that's beside the point)

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

Shes not guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof should be with law enforcement, not her. The drug war is an excuse to take away civil liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

no one said she was guilty of anything, that's how they get away with it. If they were to arrest her the burden of proof is with law enforcement.

these seizure laws are obscene.

[Jeffage]

Just to clarify, I too believe cash seizure laws are a major civil liberty issue and COMPLETELY disagree with them. I don't think I, as a law-abiding citizen should have to worry how much cash I carry when flying to Vegas, etc. I just stated that if her story is straight, she will probably get the money back...I still don't agree it should have been seized in the first place.

Jeff

[Masquerade]

This article claims that passengers have to file a currency report if taking more than $10,000 out of the country. Is that correct? When I flew INTO the US I had to fill in a customs form which had a box to tick if you were bringing in more than $10,000 [I wasnt] but when flying home I was at no point given any forms or asked about how much cash I was carrying. [Yes I did have over $10K by then /images/graemlins/cool.gif]

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
She's not guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof should be with law enforcement, not her. The drug war is an excuse to take away civil liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's enough to make one a Libertarian.

Oh, wait, I'm already a Libertarian.

[nycplayer]

The money will be returned in about 3 years. That is how long the gov't will be able to appeal/stonewall/etc. Fairly typical in these cases.
Google "Steve Jackson Games Secret Service" for another case of the friendly Feds seizing assets from the innocent.

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
The money will be returned in about 3 years. That is how long the gov't will be able to appeal/stonewall/etc. Fairly typical in these cases.
Google "Steve Jackson Games Secret Service" for another case of the friendly Feds seizing assets from the innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]

SJ Games vs. The Secret Service (http://www.sjgames.com/SS/)

[StevieG]

this link (http://www.erowid.org/freedom/law/forfeiture/forfeiture_media4.shtml) seems closer to this case

[coffeecrazy1]

Heh...me too...which reminds me...I need to pay my dues for this year.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
notice this happened in february, and we're just seeing a lawsuit being filed four months later. I'm sure she's been trying to get it back.


[/ QUOTE ]

that's pretty clear evidence the Government likely had probable cause. they probably had a warrant (issued form a judge upon shwoing of probable cause) and had been following her before the flight. otherwise she would have had a hearing much, much sooner. the fact that she had to file suit 4 months later suggests the government had at least probable cause to suspect she was carrying cash related to illegal activities and did not just randomly pick her out and take her cash. she is probably suing under the civil asset forfeiture reform act instead of taking advantage of administrative remedies under the CSA for establishing probable cause. clearly shady, shady stuff by both sides though.

here's a post I recently made in mid-high limit holdem on this issue

[ QUOTE ]

You won't easily find and digest it (maybe you will but its subtle and implicates a lot more than the following sections- this is only a brief example of one area of law- federal drug laws- other areas like smuggling and terroism have similar provisions), but long story short 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) authorizes the forfeiture of "[a]ll moneys * * * furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance * * *, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys * * * used or intended to be used to facilitate" illegal drug activities.

Furthermore, 21 U.S.C. § 881(b) provides for the seizure of assets without a warrant in certain situations, one of which is "(4) the Attorney General has probable cause to believe that the property is subject to civil forfeiture under this subchapter."

This is OK because this section provides for a "prompt" hearing in which the Goverment must prove they had 'probable cause" to seize the assets wihtout a warrant (if they got a warrant they established probable cause to the judge who issued the warrant), thus satifying the consitutional protection against the deprivation of property without due process of law.

Unwarranted seizure doesn't happen as much anymore since the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, which makes it harder for the Government to justify seizure and provides remedies to someone whose property is illegaly seized, amongst other things, but warrantless seizure is still authorized by federal law.

Unless you have drugs on you or you look and act like a complete whackjob seizure won't even be on the radar but warrantless seizure of cash and other property *can* happen in certain (thankfully rare) circumstances. criminal law is some scary sh!t



[/ QUOTE ]

[other1]

Nationals + visitors have different forms.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
SJ Games vs. The Secret Service (http://www.sjgames.com/SS/)

[/ QUOTE ]

Btw, if you want to read more on this subject. The book "Hacker Crackdown" is freely available on the internet(legally).

[BluffTHIS!]

Although I am a conservative, I don't really like these type of laws either. That being said, does anyone here really believe this woman is NOT transporting the proceeds/payment for illegal merchandise/actions of some kind when she merely could have carried a certified check made payable to the tummy tuck/big boob guy?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
does anyone here really believe this woman is NOT transporting the proceeds/payment for illegal merchandise/actions of some kind

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly. But then again, there's a good chance that whatever "illegal" activity generaterd that cash shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

[BluffTHIS!]

If you mean because she might have made it by growing pot in her basement then I wouldn't disagree. If you mean because she might be a runner for a drug/mob cartel that routinely kills informants, judges and law enforcement officers then I would.

[whipsaw]

I just can't get over the humor of this woman travelling to get a boob job and putting the money in her bra. It's almost too funny not to be true.

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, does anyone here really believe this woman is NOT transporting the proceeds/payment for illegal merchandise/actions of some kind when she merely could have carried a certified check made payable to the tummy tuck/big boob guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt that this is extremely suspicious. However, that makes this a lead, not a crime.

They have her itinerary and identification. Get the name of the doctor and verify appointments. Follow her when she arrives, etc.

Seizing the cash is at best lazy police work. It sounds more like what you would expect of corrupt officials in a third world country.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Although I am a conservative, I don't really like these type of laws either.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a weird statement. Maybe it's just the wording. When did "conservative" become synonymous with "anti-freedom"? This statement sounds as though it should be assumed that someone being conservative means they are for big government and for stepping all over people's liberties?

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, does anyone here really believe this woman is NOT transporting the proceeds/payment for illegal merchandise/actions of some kind when she merely could have carried a certified check made payable to the tummy tuck/big boob guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really know, and neither does anyone else here. but, the question seems irrelevant to the situation.

[BluffTHIS!]

I think it's relevant to indicating whether there is probable cause to believe she is involved in something illegal, though that does not necessarily justify forfeiture. I think it is relevant as well to note, that our constitutional rights protections exist to protect the innocent and insure fair punishment of the guilty, not to furnish the guilty with ways to avoid prosecution. Her behaviour walks and quacks like a guilty duck.

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
Although I am a conservative, I don't really like these type of laws either. That being said, does anyone here really believe this woman is NOT transporting the proceeds/payment for illegal merchandise/actions of some kind when she merely could have carried a certified check made payable to the tummy tuck/big boob guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but that's entirely beside the point. Suspicion of a crime is not proof of a crime. The notion that money (or houses* and other high-value property) can be seized by the government on the mere suspicion that it was somehow connected to drug dealing or any other crime is (or should be) abhorrent to anyone who cares about the US Constitution. WTF happened to due process?!?

* Several years ago, I corresponded with a woman on a BBS network who was in her 60s or 70s at the time, and owned a rental property where the tenants were under investigation for drug dealing and/or manufacturing. The agents investigating the case casually mentioned that they had the legal right to seize her house, even though they decided not to, never mind that she had no way of knowing what her tenants were up to. She could be held "legally" responsible for their actions, even though as a landlord, she had a legal obligation to respect her tenants' privacy rights and not make random unannounced inspections to make sure that they were not doing anything illegal. Just the mere fact that the property was (or might be!) being used for illegal drug-related activities meant that they could take the property from its rightful owner and force her to go through expensive legal battles to try to get it back, even if she was totally innocent.

This sort of thing is a big step on the road to totalitarianism.

-Mike

[canis582]

By probable cause, you mean because she was foreign. If she was a white man in a suit instead, then there is no probable cause right?

DEA agents are self-serving career bureaucrats, do you want to trust their judgement?

Nice post Count
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=21659&mode=nested&order=0

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
This sort of thing is a big step on the road to totalitarianism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stories like this make me think we're at the last rest area along that road. Just a few more miles before we reach our destination.

I'm told there was a day when Republicans claimed with a straight face to believe in small government. (Even then this didn't extend to subsidizing the defense industry, but you can't have everything I guess.)

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's relevant to indicating whether there is probable cause to believe she is involved in something illegal, though that does not necessarily justify forfeiture. I think it is relevant as well to note, that our constitutional rights protections exist to protect the innocent and insure fair punishment of the guilty, not to furnish the guilty with ways to avoid prosecution.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that's true, it does mean that the goverment is obligated to obey the rules, and if they don't, they have to forfeit their case. The reason those rights were written into the Constitution was that governments historically abused their power, and the framers wanted to protect citizens from that. Letting some guilty people go unpunished is the price we have to pay for ensuring that the innocent are protected from the tremendous power of the government.


[ QUOTE ]
Her behaviour walks and quacks like a guilty duck.

[/ QUOTE ]

She might indeed be guilty of something illegal. Or she might be guilty of simply being weird. Carrying a large sum of cash is not, and should not be treated as, prima facie evidence of a crime.

-Mike

[BluffTHIS!]

I actually agree with you regarding carrying large sums of cash, and do not like the idea of all our monetary value being forced to be in banks so that all our private financial matters have to be unprivate and transparent to big brother. But my main point in my first post in this thread, is that this individual probably is in fact guilty of something because she had such a BS story, and that the government does in fact use such an action as probable cause, not whether they should always in fact do so without other evidence.

And in regard to the other poster's comment about her being foreign, she is in fact foreign born but a naturalized citizen and should be afforded all the rights, and held to all the responsibilities of any other citizen.

[canis582]

I am going to try to breakdown the philosophical arguement that this post has turned into.

Would you rather imprison 5 innocent people AND 5 murderers or let 5 murderers go free?

[MikeL05]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather imprison 5 innocent people AND 5 murderers or let 5 murderers go free?

[/ QUOTE ]

Our judicial system, I believe, is based on the idea that the latter of the two there is the better.

Also... I'm pretty sure a breast and butt job do not cost anywhere near $46,000. That's what makes me suspicious.

[whipsaw]

[ QUOTE ]


Stories like this make me think we're at the last rest area along that road. Just a few more miles before we reach our destination.



[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should ask someone who lives under a REAL totalitarian regime if the U.S. is actually that close. Speaking of this one oddball example like it's the SOP in all cases and tossing around the word "totalitarian" when it vastly overstates the situation is simply cavalier. It marginalizes the real meaning of totalitarian.

[canis582]

If it were only limited to one example, those of us who actually read 1984 would be much more comfortable.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should ask someone who lives under a REAL totalitarian regime if the U.S. is actually that close. Speaking of this one oddball example like it's the SOP in all cases and tossing around the word "totalitarian" when it vastly overstates the situation is simply cavalier. It marginalizes the real meaning of totalitarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we wouldn't want to be cavalier. Obviosuly this was hyperbole, but that doesn't change the fact that this is wrong, or that we're on a slippery slope.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I am going to try to breakdown the philosophical arguement that this post has turned into.

Would you rather imprison 5 innocent people AND 5 murderers or let 5 murderers go free?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have mistaken my point entirely, which merely was that this particular individual in this particular situation concocted an obviouly BS story and is "probably" guilty although she should of course be allowed due process. The other part where I said that rights do not exist to protect the guilty from punishment should not be construed to say that I believe there should thus be less rights for all which might lead to the innocent being convicted of crimes they did not commit.

[whipsaw]

[ QUOTE ]


Well we wouldn't want to be cavalier. Obviosuly this was hyperbole, but that doesn't change the fact that this is wrong, or that we're on a slippery slope.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's sort of my point, if you read my whole post. Tossing around a grossly exaggerated term like "totalitarian" in a situation like this simply marginalizes its meaning. It's like saying "I got raped" when you lose badly at something--it marginalizes the importance of the word through an obvious hyperbole.

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
interesting article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/06/23/woman_stopped_at_logan_with_46950_sues_dea/) re: carrying large amounts of cash on airplanes.

I can't help but think you'll have less problems if you are not hispanic. Maybe I'm just cynical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember watching a story awhile ago on 60 Minutes about a police department in the southern US that would routinely confiscate basically any money they found on black motorists who were pulled over during traffic stops. Apparently they were allowed to do it if they suspected that the money was involved in any way in the drug trade...and it seemed that they very rarely decided that money *wasn't* being used for drugs. If you were black (or hispanic, presumably) and you were carrying around more than a few bucks on you, it was as good as gone. The police station was in a really poor area, but the officers all drove new vehicles, the station was a palace, and the sheriff lived in a very large house.

It was quite disgusting, and all totally legal.

[smoore]

[ QUOTE ]
When did "conservative" become synonymous with "anti-freedom"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly here. (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres63.html)

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When did "conservative" become synonymous with "anti-freedom"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly here. (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres63.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[SNOWBALL138]

Looks like racial profiling to me. She has no criminal record.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should ask someone who lives under a REAL totalitarian regime if the U.S. is actually that close. Speaking of this one oddball example like it's the SOP in all cases and tossing around the word "totalitarian" when it vastly overstates the situation is simply cavalier. It marginalizes the real meaning of totalitarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken, but if you were going to make a list of objective criteria to help identify a totalitarian regime, seizure of assets without due process would be one of the characteristics.

On a somewhat related topic, when people say that this country is somehow more democratic than others, I have to chuckle. Mock elections where 90% of the public is casting votes for safe seats don't make a democracy.

So while things aren't as bad as totalitarianism for most of us, I have to think they are for the person having their assets seized without due process, don't you think?

[cardcounter0]

"...that's pretty clear evidence the Government likely had probable cause. they probably had a warrant (issued form a judge upon shwoing of probable cause) and had been following her before the flight..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAW.. Thanks for the chuckle.