Family Sues DEA and TSA After Elderly Man's Life Savings Were Seized at Airport - Page 3

Family Sues DEA and TSA After Elderly Man's Life Savings Were Seized at Airport

This is a discussion on Family Sues DEA and TSA After Elderly Man's Life Savings Were Seized at Airport within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; We talk about things like this at our coffee get togethers. We also talk about how difficult it is to buy a new automobile with ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 44 of 44
Like Tree176Likes

Thread: Family Sues DEA and TSA After Elderly Man's Life Savings Were Seized at Airport

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array NECCdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    2,041
    We talk about things like this at our coffee get togethers. We also talk about how difficult it is to buy a new automobile with cash without causing suspicion. Everyone agreed that no one should be telling us that we can't pay cash for something over $10,000 without creating a SAR. But this kind of thing is why the government wants more control over us by requiring everything to be paid by credit card or loans. And that's one reason why cryptocurrency hasn't taken off. Despite the governments "best" efforts they can't seem to stop crime. If they could, a lot of people in law enforcement would be out of a job. This all links to infringement of the 2A also.
    RScottie likes this.
    Microwave technicians are fully deviated.

    Member SAF, GOA, NFOA, USCCA

  2. #32
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,122
    It really doesn't matter what we decide it means. The founding fathers understood exactly what seizures by the government meant, and they decided to prohibit it. It is always amazing to me exactly how much of the Constitution we allow people to disregard.

    Amendment IV
    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.
    BTW the courts just severely restricted the free for all that some law enforcement agencies were having with seizing things without enumeration. I don't have a link though.
    Last edited by OldChap; January 20th, 2020 at 09:51 PM.
    RScottie, OD* and ETXhiker like this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array ColoradoDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,351
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    I really doesn't matter what we decide it means. The founding fathers understood exactly what seizures by the government meant, and they decided to prohibit it. It is always amazing to me exactly how much of the Constitution we allow people to disregard.



    BTW the courts just severely restricted the free for all that some law enforcement agencies were having with seizing things without enumeration. I don't have a link though.
    I believe this is the case you're referring to:

    https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...on/2926312002/
    OldChap and ETXhiker like this.
    U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
    Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array Hoganbeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    4,037
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoradoDiablo View Post
    I believe this is the case you're referring to:

    https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...on/2926312002/
    Possibly not. This case is not about asset forfeiture per se, but about excessive fines; the vehicle was worth way more than the maximum fine allowed for that crime. It is however an important step forward. Thanks for the link.
    OldChap likes this.
    “Propaganda will never die out. Intelligent men must realize that propaganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends and help to bring order out of chaos.”
    -- Edward Bernays

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,122
    Does anybody hate keyboards anywhere near as much as I do? Mrs OldChap says I have a gleam of murder in my eye when I look at computers!

    REMUNERATION... not enumeration!

    Sorry wandering a bit off topic. Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
    Last edited by OldChap; January 21st, 2020 at 11:17 AM.
    ETXhiker likes this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array ColoradoDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoganbeg View Post
    Possibly not. This case is not about asset forfeiture per se, but about excessive fines; the vehicle was worth way more than the maximum fine allowed for that crime. It is however an important step forward. Thanks for the link.
    It speaks to asset forfeiture as an excess civil fine but the opinions speak to the idea that fines must be proportionally related to the crimes alleged. If, as in this case, there is no alleged crime, then there can be no forfeiture. The Indiana case bridges to the facts here.
    Hoganbeg and OldChap like this.
    U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
    Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array RScottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,276
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho41 View Post
    The biggest problem with asset forfeiture is that, in most cases, the agency confiscating the assets get to keep the assets. So, they have a vested interest in seizing assets even when there is little to no evidence of wrong doing. Many have stated that just having large sums of cash is enough to confiscate w/o any indication of illegality. Responses from those agencies are typically that if the funds weren't not part of illegal activities, the citizen can "go through the courts" to get their assets back. Yet, that can take a long time and a lot of money to accomplish. In a society where we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, I fail to see how our "property" is somehow guilty until proven innocent.

    Having said that, I can see a purpose for such a process to thwart crime. But, there needs to be more oversight:

    1) There should be some objective, reasonable circumstances that would give the impression the assets were linked to criminal activity in order for them to be seized. Merely having a large sum of cash is not enough.
    2) Upon seizure, the government should have a (short) time limit upon which they must provide evidence to sustain why the funds should be permanently seized. I'd say no more than 30 days (or less) to give them the opportunity to investigate if needed. If they do not meet the time limit or cannot provide any justifiable proof, the assets should be returned - with the citizen having to pay zero fees/costs in getting their assets back. For property, there should be compensation if there is any damage (can be paid by funds that are permanently seized).
    3) Absolutely no seized assets should go to agencies that are responsible for seizing the assets (or to any agencies that have any relationship with the seizing agency). E.g. the funds should not go to a police department or the prosecutor's office. In fact, I'd be in favor of using those assets to fund things such as homelessness or drug addition programs.

    This is from 2014: Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year
    I agree with 1 and 3 but #2 does not mention a trial and conviction.

    We should make them go back to requiring a person to be tried and convicted of an actual crime.

    Absent that, there is NO justification to take anyone's property whatsoever.
    1MoreFord and OldChap like this.

  9. #38
    Senior Member Array Stirling XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,083
    And this is how our government and LE treat a population that is armed.
    ETXhiker likes this.
    Has anyone tried turning the country off and then back on again?

  10. #39
    VIP Member Array Texas Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,131
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    So you advocate free, unabated movement and use of cocaine, heroin, meth, crystal, etc.?
    Where'd you come up with that one?
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

    Agent K

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,122
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    So you advocate free, unabated movement and use of cocaine, heroin, meth, crystal, etc.?
    Those of us who have worked in law enforcement constantly asked ourselves if we thought we were winning the war on drugs. (Or at least many I knew did) The answer was plain as the nose on our face - NO!

    I don't know what the percentage was, but I would guess 1 in 3 vehicle stops turned up drugs. Most crimes involved drugs in one form or another and to one degree or another.

    People say drug use is a "victimless crime", which is one of the most stupid excuses I've ever heard in my 7 decades. Where do people with a $1000 a week habit get the money for those drugs?

    I have strong opinions about drug use/abuse (which yes includes the ones you can legally purchase). A very significant percentage of our population is so stoned they wouldn't notice a dump truck driving through a nitroglycerin factory if it blew them up. That is a recipe for catastrophe.

    Let's not go into how misdirected our efforts to control illegal drug sales are.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    32,921
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    Those of us who have worked in law enforcement constantly asked ourselves if we thought we were winning the war on drugs. (Or at least many I knew did) The answer was plain as the nose on our face - NO! ...
    Let's not go into how misdirected our efforts to control illegal drug sales are.
    I've never implied we were winning any war on drugs or even approaching a tie, but there are so many who advocate legalizing them--or at least calling for a cease fire. As you well know, the effects drugs have on people are not based on the legality of the drugs they take. Addition is addiction, and few think ahead and can imagine an entire world of stoned-out meth heads that would proliferate if LE just gave up and let people have what they want, even in their drug-induced hazes.

    It would be no difference than if we just tore down all the fences and walls and put up big welcome signs on our borders. While we cannot stop illegal entry into the U.S., we can certain make an effort to minimize it.
    OldChap, msgt/ret and SatCong like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,122
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    I've never implied we were winning any war on drugs or even approaching a tie, but there are so many who advocate legalizing them--or at least calling for a cease fire. As you well know, the effects drugs have on people are not based on the legality of the drugs they take. Addition is addiction, and few think ahead and can imagine an entire world of stoned-out meth heads that would proliferate if LE just gave up and let people have what they want, even in their drug-induced hazes.

    It would be no difference than if we just tore down all the fences and walls and put up big welcome signs on our borders. While we cannot stop illegal entry into the U.S., we can certain make an effort to minimize it.
    Absolutely. Two notes for us to remember. LE does not make laws, they enforce laws enacted by the representatives of the people. LEO's have some discretionary powers, but beyond a certain point, they must act. Unless, they feel the laws passed violate the Constitution(s) they have sworn to uphold.

    The other is that the war on drugs could be won, but not by fighting against people who are addicted to drugs. The fight must be carried to the folks who are addicted to piles of illegally-gained cash. The good news is we don't need LE to do that. Those folks are, for the most part, in foreign countries and could be fair game for the military.
    montejames likes this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  14. #43
    Member Array gunenthusiast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by RScottie View Post
    We are innocent until proven guilty in this country. That is how our system of Justice was designed.
    Designed, yes. But it is not what it was designed like for long time already (Incidentally, it was copied from anrient Roman system).

  15. #44
    Member Array Skolnick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoradoDiablo View Post
    fines must be proportionally related to the crimes alleged. If, as in this case, there is no alleged crime, then there can be no forfeiture.
    Quote Originally Posted by RScottie View Post
    We should make them go back to requiring a person to be tried and convicted of an actual crime.
    Amendment 5: No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    According to Lost Rights (1994) by James Bovard, the percentage of asset forfeiture where the property owners are never charged with a crime is 80%. Terrence Rolin is now one of them.




    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    imagine an entire world of stoned-out meth heads that would proliferate if LE just gave up and let people have what they want ...
    Because Prohibition was such a smashing success?




    It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.

    United States Supreme Court
    Justice Robert Jackson
    American Communication Association v Douds
    343 U.S. 306, 325
    [1952]

    Robert Jackson -- appointed associate justice U.S. Supreme Court 1941 -- appointed chief prosecutor, war crimes trials, Nuremberg, Germany 1945
    msgt/ret, sdprof and RScottie like this.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •