> Federal drug agents regularly mine Americans’ travel information to profile people who might be ferrying money for narcotics traffickers — though they almost never use what they learn to make arrests or build criminal cases.
> Instead, that targeting has helped the Drug Enforcement Administration seize a small fortune in cash.
So, they're basically the Sheriff of Nottingham, or the old Central European robber barons.
> DEA units assigned to patrol 15 of the nation’s busiest airports seized more than $209 million in cash from at least 5,200 people over the past decade after concluding the money was linked to drug trafficking
I mean, it's plausible in all these stories that it is. But it seems like there should be a higher standard before the feds can take tens of thousands of dollars from you.
If someone told you Brazilian police were taking people's cash you wouldn't for one second think there was some non self serving aspect to this. You wouldn't even look to see if there was any law supporting it. You would just dismiss it as corrupt police officers in a corrupt system, just like you should be doing in this case.
Forgot for a moment that you recited that pledge every morning for 13 years of your life, and think about how someone not from America would perceive this
I'm not saying "hey, it's totally OK that they're doing this" or that it's not self-serving. What I'm saying is that these people are not exactly as sympathetic/blameless as some of the other asset forfeiture articles I've read.
not blameless when viewed in support of a victimless crime and flawed law riddled with conflicts of interest, discriminatory discretion, and self serving ends.
if you want a grand jury to find that the federal officers acted within agency guidelines, then great, you will continue to be able to sleep at night
if you want the supreme court to continue to find those laws constitutional, then great you will continue to sleep at night. Eugenics programs are constitutional and so politically unpopular that all 50 states have laws that nullify the practice.
The rest of us see this perverse practice for what is and would prefer if Congress modifies laws to instruct its agencies to stop the practice and stop funding themselves by taking citizen's money instead of preparing funding pitch decks for representatives which require oversight
It's easy for them to conclude, with no due process. They just say so, take the money, and leave you having to file suit and fight the government to get your own money back.
Asset forfeiture is more of a travesty than money "laundering" being a crime is.
The sicker part is that it's just admitting that their justice system is so broken that they wouldn't be able to get convictions against these "criminals" otherwise.
The entire purpose of money is to be fungible. $1 is worth exactly the same as another $1. Inventing the crime of "money laundering" erodes the very concept of money by making its exchange value dependent on who you know and how politically connected they are.
Furthermore, forcing people to structure their activities to be legible to the government is making everybody work as an informant against themselves.
"Money laundering" and "stolen" are orthogonal. "Money laundering" is usually persecuted against someone suspected of doing legitimate business that the government doesn't like, and sometimes even against people who are simply pushing back against that FINCEN >$10k surveillance.
You can tell it's one of those specious "laws" that actually destroys the rule of law because it flips the script to guilty until proven innocent.
By one perspective, I'm always welcoming laws that make it harder for corrupt politicians to do their things, while having only mild effects on honest citizens.
By another perspective, your comment is spot on, and it destroys a fundamental theoretical characteristic of money.
By yet another perspective, the more recent versions of those laws make it just too easy for governments to spy on every citizen. Although it is not as bad as spying on communications, it can become very bad in the future.
And, finally, by another perspective, I can't recall a single politician caught by the information those laws make available. And I live in Brazil - I've already lost count of the politician arrests of this week.
Because "nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...". 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Unless you think "due process" == "Because I said so", it is both legally and morally a travesty.
Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so"; which is not to say that certain applications of it are not deeply problematic, but hyperbole is not helpful in discussing them.
> Civil forfeiture has considerably more procedural protection than "because I said so";
Not at all...
It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money." The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent if, say, you'd been working a job and saving cash (don't trust the banks) for 10 years and are moving across the country.
> It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money."
Except, not, because the government bears the burden of proving that it is drug money, assuming you assert a claim that the funds should not be subject to forfeiture. (If they meet that burden and you wish to keep the money anyway by invoking the innocent owner principal, you have the burden of proving that you were not involved in the illegal conduct that made the money subject to forfeiture or acted to end it as soon as you became aware, though.)
> The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent
No, though there is a legitimate issue that it may be difficult to afford decent representation to do a good job of countering the government's attempt to prove your money guilty if, you know, the government's just seized your life savings.
(This is actually related to the reason I am inclined to think that the right to publicly-provided counsel ought to apply in any legal case pursued against an indigent defendant by the government, whether or not it is a criminal case.)
Money laundering doesn't care if the source is illegal. I can earn money working a regular, taxed job, and if I take steps to conceal the source of that money I will go to prison.
> The law, contained at section 1956 of Title 18 of the United States Code, prohibits individuals from engaging in a financial transaction with proceeds that were generated from certain specific crimes, known as "specified unlawful activities" (SUAs). The law requires that an individual specifically intend in making the transaction to conceal the source, ownership or control of the funds.
People here seem to be of the opinion that we have a system and process for prosecuting people suspected of crimes, and should use it rather than inventing a separate procedure with radically lower burden of proof and significantly less due process for the person involved.
In other words: if someone's suspected of money laundering, charge them with money laundering, convict them of it and then seize the money after the conviction is obtained.
Some of the money certainly was, perhaps even most. It is, however a grave injustice when money that is totally legitimate gets seized from innocent people, and some of the people mentioned in the article had strong evidence for their money being from legitimate sources.
The fundamental problem is that the standard of proof required is much lower than in criminal law. The legislative remedy some states have started to use is to require a criminal charge to seize property and a criminal conviction for forfeiture.
I'd argue the fundamental problem is that 'civil forfeiture' is 'guilty until proven innocent', an inversion of the way the rule of law is meant to work.
Requiring charges is a very small step in the right direction. I suspect what will happen is that people with money will now be charged for small, ridiculous offences, misdemeanours, as a way for law enforcement to skirt the law.
A real improvement is to seize, hold, require conviction, and then enforce forfeiture. If a conviction cannot be made, the forfeiture should be invalidated.
> I'd argue the fundamental problem is that 'civil forfeiture' is 'guilty until proven innocent', an inversion of the way the rule of law is meant to work.
That's not an inversion of the way "the rule of law" is supposed to work, its an inversion of the way criminal punishment is supposed to work, because of the particular character of criminal sanction. But civil forfeiture isn't criminal punishment, and doesn't have the features for which that protection exists.
Further, civil forfeiture mostly isn't "guilty until proven innocent"; while the burden of proof is the typical civil burden of proof ("preponderance of the evidence" rather than the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt"), the government bears the burden of proving that assets are subject to forfeiture in a contested forfeiture.
(The one aspect of civil forfeiture that has a bit of "guilty until proven innocent" is the "innocent owner" defense, on which the owner bears the burden of proof, where property that is subject to forfeiture -- e.g., because it has been proven to be proceeds of a crime -- is nevertheless immune to forfeiture because the owner either did not know of the conduct justifying the forfeiture or took steps to stop the use of the property giving rise to the forfeiture once they did know.)
But civil forfeiture isn't criminal punishment, and doesn't have the features for which that protection exists.
It technically isn't, but the intent is to give the government options to punish criminal behavior and criminal organizations without having to meet the same standards of proof or respect the same set of rights they would under criminal law. Traditional civil law deals with breaches of contract and torts where someone has been harmed and needs to be made whole, not the government attempting to maintain order. Civil asset forfeiture is fundamentally "getting a conviction here would be too hard, let's take their stuff instead".
Most people talking about the burden of proof are misusing the term, but the protections guaranteed to a criminal defendant are reduced or absent in civil asset forfeiture. Using civil law in this manner should give us pause, as there are good reasons for the limitations and guarantees of criminal law.
> It technically isn't, but the intent is to give the government options to punish criminal behavior and criminal organizations without having to meet the same standards of proof or respect the same set of rights they would under criminal law.
The behavior at issue (which often is the same behavior covered by tort law) is not the reason for the additional protections of criminal law; the sanctions available under criminal law are the primary reason for the protections.
I'd argue that while it may technically not be "criminal punishment", that is ultimately the final outcome. People for whom a criminal conviction cannot be guaranteed are instead "punished" by having their goods taken. However IANAL, and that is simply my perception of the effect.
* I suspect what will happen is that people with money will now be charged for small, ridiculous offences, misdemeanours, as a way for law enforcement to skirt the law.*
That could happen, though I think some reformed laws require it to be a felony, while others require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the property is tied to the crime.
Yep, legalized theft. Civil forfeiture works to fleece the peasantry (and the criminals) equally. The DEA and police use this method to fund their organizations, because in most cases, they're allowed to keep most if not all of the money seized. That's an enormous conflict of interest that has caused many innocent people to get shafted by the government, as has been shown here (and elsewhere) in prior stories related to civil forfeiture.
TL;DR: Never travel with cash, gift cards, or cash cards.
I had an acquaintance that had the police seize $10k in cash from him after he had gotten in a car accident, along with bags of clothing he had bought at the mall. After court and everything the clothing was never reported and the $10k became $4k. It's not just money they'll take, it's anything of value they feel like.
Used to be people would wait a while, and then go and shoot people who did this. I can't decide if it's progress that people no longer consider this reasonable.
I think the thing I was trying to point out is that while there is the legal theft that goes under the guise of civil forfeiture there's also plenty that I feel goes unnoticed by officers acting independently of the bureaucracy.
So, anybody discussing decriminalizing drugs and proposing they are a medical issue instead can count on the fact that he/she is threatening the livelihood of both the dealers and the "enforcement" agency???
The most ridiculous part of these stories to me is that the ending was repeatedly "you got us, we can't prove this money is from illegal sources, but we're only returning part of it."
It's like they are trying to return the minimum amount to make it no longer worth the victim's effort. Definitely doesn't inspire confidence that this done in good faith.
If this were an article USA today was writing about Mexico it probably would have just gone out and called it corruption. I am certainly convinced from these cases it is a massive abuse.
> The Justice Department agreed in May to return half the money, without explanation.
That's about the ugliest thing in the entire story. It makes total sense if you're trying to defuse legal proceedings by making them not worth the price, and no sense at all if you're trying to freeze money from drug traffickers.
There is no world where this practice could pass constitutional review. What they are doing is called out as unconstitutional in no less than three (!!!) different amendments. At this point in time, the supreme court should be buckling under the weight of requests to review this practice, and have it struck down as un-American.
"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" - Fourth Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." -- Fifth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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" - Fourteenth Ammendment
(Original poster, but my procrastination settings prevented me from responding)
Generally, SCotUS approval of civil forfeiture falls into two categories:
1) Assets involved in a crime you didn't commit (e.g. lending your car to someone who robs a bank and uses it as a getaway car).
2) Assets involved in a crime where there is no access to, or evidence of the owner (e.g. a pile of money found with a pile of drugs, or the home of a criminal who has fled the country)
The form of seizure mentioned in this article is quite clearly unconstitutional.
The problem for you is that the supreme court has the final say on what the constitution means.
So for you to say "Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution" doesn't make a lot of sense. They get to say what it means, so they are "enforcing" the constitution almost by definition. (this is probably not a great word to use since they rely on other branches, like the executive, to enforce things. They can order stuff to happen, but they have no way to actually make it happen themselves).
You may mean "I don't like the interpretation they've given or i think it's wrong". That's okay too, what you do in that case is very simple: Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment to do it.
This has happened numerous times before.
They are in fact, 100% accountable in this regard. They take responsibility for their decisions, and pretty much everything from their ability to hear certain cases to almost every ruling can be overruled by either new laws or amendments.
They happily let that happen, and that is the form of review and accountability you get in our system of government :)
> Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment to do it. This has happened numerous times before.
But then the Supreme Court gets to interpret that law also. I don't see how you could possibly more clearly state what the previously quoted amendments already state.
Since it already failed(or succeeded, depending on which side you're on) in it's interpretation of the 4th/5th/14th amendments, I have zero confidence it would properly interpret any other amendment or law addressing the issue.
I like to think so too but the US Supreme Court has sanctioned civil forfeiture on more than one occasion and their decision is, by definition, constitutionally consistent. (Which is not to say that a future court couldn't reverse it, but I don't recommend you hold your breath waiting for that).
However congress could pass laws forbidding it. That is also constitutionally valid.
At its core, the problem is that the DEA has a monetary incentive to seize cash, since it can keep the cash for its own use. What if that were no longer possible, and all money confiscated by government agencies are incinerated under external supervision, if cash, or sent to the monetary equivalent of /dev/null (buying 0% Treasury perpetuities, perhaps) if electronic.
It is my sincere hope that in my lifetime a Whistle Blower cripples the DEA and exposes a profiteering, disturbing agenda that so many seem to sense is at the belligerent, Constitution-ignoring soul of the organization.
The easy solution to this (from the perspective of the criminal) is to just move the money via a cryptocurrency (traded for cash privately) and it seems completely idiotic to me that this hasn't occurred yet, there is basically zero risk of LE compromise.
I'm also rather surprised that I'm the first person to even mention it here, since this is basically a solved problem.
Is it that easy to trade $50,000 of a cryptocurrency for regular currency without leaving an ugly papertrail? I guess theoretically you can have a clean accomplice that does it for you on the regulated exchanges and hands you the cash, but I'm not sure how well that works for evading LE.
Well, you can do that, or you can try to establish a complete shadow economy on the blockchain, where both buyers and sellers use the crypto as a currency, and it only gets exchanged for cold hard (more troublesome) cash at the "leaves" which are ostensibly much smaller and more invisible amounts
I'm guessing you've never seen prices on localbitcoins or other trading sites. There is always a big markup for buying bitcoin with cash. It'd be extremely expensive to buy 5k let alone $50-100k. Then cashing out your bitcoin you'd likely losing money again.
Besides the difficulty in finding people who have $50-100k in bitcoin they want to sell then finding another person who wants to buy $50-100k in bitcoin.
The market simply isn't there for this to be practical. There would have to be a big healthy black market here for people both buying and selling BTC for cash. You'd then have to hide this transaction from the DEA/IRS (on both ends A buying -> B selling) rather than just shipping cash from point A->B.
So without a market already in place for this then you're no better off then before.
The war on drugs has wreaked havoc on our country by providing huge incentives for the criminally-minded to act as they do. And yes, I'm referring to all of the criminals involved.
The brilliant thing (For them) about this is they don't need the hassle of parallel construction if they're not building a case-- they can just use the NSA information to steal the money, and then never file charges, and thus never have to justify to a court how they acquired the knowledge that the money would be there.
Yup, although the cost of a procedure such as buying bitcoin in city "A" via lbtc, traveling, selling in city "B" via lbtc will have to weigh the risks of civil forfeiture. If you're running a drug op and paying random people to transport cash, I suspect that a very small percentage of funds will be lost to this BS. Unfortunately it will be the ignorant folks who travel with their life savings in cash to buy cars or retirement homes who will be the most harmed.
From a Latin American perspective, the US deals with corruption in a very interesting way.
* Here in Latin America the police extorts corruption and you know that it is illegal but good luck complaining. In the US they just legalize the extortion.
* Here in Latin America it is illegal to bribe a politician but everyone does it. In the US they just legalize lobbying and corporations financing campaigns.
So, to avoid corruption, the US just makes it legal?
Well, by definition, corruption is illegal. So if you make the behavior legal, in specific, defined circumstances, then it's not corruption any more. Magic!
78 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 158 ms ] threadJust because Ross said something, doesn't make it true.
> And a police dog smelled drugs on the cash
There is so much wrong with that assertion
1) Dogs are trained to find money
2) Most cash is cocaine contaminated [1]
3) A dog indicating is not proof of anything [2] usually nothing more than what the handler wants to happen
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency
[2] https://nevergetbusted.com/2014/07/20/university-study-trick...
> Instead, that targeting has helped the Drug Enforcement Administration seize a small fortune in cash.
So, they're basically the Sheriff of Nottingham, or the old Central European robber barons.
So was it drug money or not?
If someone told you Brazilian police were taking people's cash you wouldn't for one second think there was some non self serving aspect to this. You wouldn't even look to see if there was any law supporting it. You would just dismiss it as corrupt police officers in a corrupt system, just like you should be doing in this case.
Forgot for a moment that you recited that pledge every morning for 13 years of your life, and think about how someone not from America would perceive this
if you want a grand jury to find that the federal officers acted within agency guidelines, then great, you will continue to be able to sleep at night
if you want the supreme court to continue to find those laws constitutional, then great you will continue to sleep at night. Eugenics programs are constitutional and so politically unpopular that all 50 states have laws that nullify the practice.
The rest of us see this perverse practice for what is and would prefer if Congress modifies laws to instruct its agencies to stop the practice and stop funding themselves by taking citizen's money instead of preparing funding pitch decks for representatives which require oversight
Asset forfeiture is more of a travesty than money "laundering" being a crime is.
The sicker part is that it's just admitting that their justice system is so broken that they wouldn't be able to get convictions against these "criminals" otherwise.
I'm not sure why it's a travesty that it's illegal to conceal the source of illegally-earned money.
Furthermore, forcing people to structure their activities to be legible to the government is making everybody work as an informant against themselves.
You can tell it's one of those specious "laws" that actually destroys the rule of law because it flips the script to guilty until proven innocent.
By another perspective, your comment is spot on, and it destroys a fundamental theoretical characteristic of money.
By yet another perspective, the more recent versions of those laws make it just too easy for governments to spy on every citizen. Although it is not as bad as spying on communications, it can become very bad in the future.
And, finally, by another perspective, I can't recall a single politician caught by the information those laws make available. And I live in Brazil - I've already lost count of the politician arrests of this week.
Just not for the actual purpose of the law, haha. Which probably strengthens your argument.
Not really - the DEA, state and local police regularly steal cash and other belongings from US citizens without any probable cause.
Not at all...
It goes something like this "We found this $10K in a car on a known drug route with out of state plates, prove it's not a drug money." The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent if, say, you'd been working a job and saving cash (don't trust the banks) for 10 years and are moving across the country.
Except, not, because the government bears the burden of proving that it is drug money, assuming you assert a claim that the funds should not be subject to forfeiture. (If they meet that burden and you wish to keep the money anyway by invoking the innocent owner principal, you have the burden of proving that you were not involved in the illegal conduct that made the money subject to forfeiture or acted to end it as soon as you became aware, though.)
> The issues is that it's really hard to prove your money is innocent
No, though there is a legitimate issue that it may be difficult to afford decent representation to do a good job of countering the government's attempt to prove your money guilty if, you know, the government's just seized your life savings.
(This is actually related to the reason I am inclined to think that the right to publicly-provided counsel ought to apply in any legal case pursued against an indigent defendant by the government, whether or not it is a criminal case.)
> The law, contained at section 1956 of Title 18 of the United States Code, prohibits individuals from engaging in a financial transaction with proceeds that were generated from certain specific crimes, known as "specified unlawful activities" (SUAs). The law requires that an individual specifically intend in making the transaction to conceal the source, ownership or control of the funds.
In other words: if someone's suspected of money laundering, charge them with money laundering, convict them of it and then seize the money after the conviction is obtained.
The fundamental problem is that the standard of proof required is much lower than in criminal law. The legislative remedy some states have started to use is to require a criminal charge to seize property and a criminal conviction for forfeiture.
Requiring charges is a very small step in the right direction. I suspect what will happen is that people with money will now be charged for small, ridiculous offences, misdemeanours, as a way for law enforcement to skirt the law.
A real improvement is to seize, hold, require conviction, and then enforce forfeiture. If a conviction cannot be made, the forfeiture should be invalidated.
That's not an inversion of the way "the rule of law" is supposed to work, its an inversion of the way criminal punishment is supposed to work, because of the particular character of criminal sanction. But civil forfeiture isn't criminal punishment, and doesn't have the features for which that protection exists.
Further, civil forfeiture mostly isn't "guilty until proven innocent"; while the burden of proof is the typical civil burden of proof ("preponderance of the evidence" rather than the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt"), the government bears the burden of proving that assets are subject to forfeiture in a contested forfeiture.
(The one aspect of civil forfeiture that has a bit of "guilty until proven innocent" is the "innocent owner" defense, on which the owner bears the burden of proof, where property that is subject to forfeiture -- e.g., because it has been proven to be proceeds of a crime -- is nevertheless immune to forfeiture because the owner either did not know of the conduct justifying the forfeiture or took steps to stop the use of the property giving rise to the forfeiture once they did know.)
And to "contest" it requires an attorney at about $200/hour. I would say that counts as a "burden" to 99.99% of the population.
It technically isn't, but the intent is to give the government options to punish criminal behavior and criminal organizations without having to meet the same standards of proof or respect the same set of rights they would under criminal law. Traditional civil law deals with breaches of contract and torts where someone has been harmed and needs to be made whole, not the government attempting to maintain order. Civil asset forfeiture is fundamentally "getting a conviction here would be too hard, let's take their stuff instead".
Most people talking about the burden of proof are misusing the term, but the protections guaranteed to a criminal defendant are reduced or absent in civil asset forfeiture. Using civil law in this manner should give us pause, as there are good reasons for the limitations and guarantees of criminal law.
The behavior at issue (which often is the same behavior covered by tort law) is not the reason for the additional protections of criminal law; the sanctions available under criminal law are the primary reason for the protections.
I'd argue that while it may technically not be "criminal punishment", that is ultimately the final outcome. People for whom a criminal conviction cannot be guaranteed are instead "punished" by having their goods taken. However IANAL, and that is simply my perception of the effect.
That could happen, though I think some reformed laws require it to be a felony, while others require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the property is tied to the crime.
TL;DR: Never travel with cash, gift cards, or cash cards.
(and be appropriately wary)
In other words, the circle is complete. I wouldn't be surprised if it ever wasn't broken.
If this were an article USA today was writing about Mexico it probably would have just gone out and called it corruption. I am certainly convinced from these cases it is a massive abuse.
That's about the ugliest thing in the entire story. It makes total sense if you're trying to defuse legal proceedings by making them not worth the price, and no sense at all if you're trying to freeze money from drug traffickers.
"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" - Fourth Amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." -- Fifth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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" - Fourteenth Ammendment
And yet, civil asset forfeiture has been sanctioned by SCotUS.
If we're ever going to change this kind of crap, indignation and, "But, but, but ... nuh-uh!" are not the places to start.
Generally, SCotUS approval of civil forfeiture falls into two categories:
1) Assets involved in a crime you didn't commit (e.g. lending your car to someone who robs a bank and uses it as a getaway car).
2) Assets involved in a crime where there is no access to, or evidence of the owner (e.g. a pile of money found with a pile of drugs, or the home of a criminal who has fled the country)
The form of seizure mentioned in this article is quite clearly unconstitutional.
While these thefts are disturbing, this lack of accountability from the Supreme Court will ultimately lead to much worse crimes.
So for you to say "Supreme Court is not enforcing the constitution" doesn't make a lot of sense. They get to say what it means, so they are "enforcing" the constitution almost by definition. (this is probably not a great word to use since they rely on other branches, like the executive, to enforce things. They can order stuff to happen, but they have no way to actually make it happen themselves).
You may mean "I don't like the interpretation they've given or i think it's wrong". That's okay too, what you do in that case is very simple: Congress passes a law to overrule the supreme court, or the country pass an amendment to do it. This has happened numerous times before.
They are in fact, 100% accountable in this regard. They take responsibility for their decisions, and pretty much everything from their ability to hear certain cases to almost every ruling can be overruled by either new laws or amendments.
They happily let that happen, and that is the form of review and accountability you get in our system of government :)
But then the Supreme Court gets to interpret that law also. I don't see how you could possibly more clearly state what the previously quoted amendments already state.
Since it already failed(or succeeded, depending on which side you're on) in it's interpretation of the 4th/5th/14th amendments, I have zero confidence it would properly interpret any other amendment or law addressing the issue.
However congress could pass laws forbidding it. That is also constitutionally valid.
I'm also rather surprised that I'm the first person to even mention it here, since this is basically a solved problem.
Besides the difficulty in finding people who have $50-100k in bitcoin they want to sell then finding another person who wants to buy $50-100k in bitcoin.
The market simply isn't there for this to be practical. There would have to be a big healthy black market here for people both buying and selling BTC for cash. You'd then have to hide this transaction from the DEA/IRS (on both ends A buying -> B selling) rather than just shipping cash from point A->B.
So without a market already in place for this then you're no better off then before.
The war on drugs has wreaked havoc on our country by providing huge incentives for the criminally-minded to act as they do. And yes, I'm referring to all of the criminals involved.
The NSA gets a cut, I'm sure.
* Here in Latin America the police extorts corruption and you know that it is illegal but good luck complaining. In the US they just legalize the extortion.
* Here in Latin America it is illegal to bribe a politician but everyone does it. In the US they just legalize lobbying and corporations financing campaigns.
So, to avoid corruption, the US just makes it legal?