>A Massachusetts couple has been fighting for three years to regain cash they say was wrongfully seized from them. In October 2012, the Illinois State Police pulled over Adam and Jennifer Perry for speeding as they were driving through Henry County on Interstate 80. The Perrys said they were headed to Salt Lake City, Utah to see a hearing specialist for an ear infection Adam was suffering from.
>A drug dog sniffed and indicated on the car. Officers then searched the vehicle and found $107,520 in cash in a suitcase and in Jennifer’s wallet. The Perrys claimed the search was without their consent and without a warrant. According to the officers, they also found a duffel bag that reportedly smelled of marijuana.
>No drugs were found in the car, nor did the government file criminal charges against the Perrys. Nevertheless, officers seized the cash and eventually transferred it to the federal government.
http://ij.org/cops-seized-over-107000-from-couple-didnt-charge-them-with-a-crime
This is making the rounds on reddit, and everyone agrees that using civil forfeiture for this is wrong. Am I the only one who sees that these are two drug dealers who just sold a duffel bag full of weed and were speeding back home with their $100k and got busted for being stupid?
>>11988
>Am I the only one who sees that these are two drug dealers who just sold a duffel bag full of weed and were speeding back home with their $100k and got busted for being stupid?
Well if they're guilty then bring them to court.
You can't just steal from people because you suspect them
>>11989
>You can't just steal from people because you suspect them
Should we just let the world launder its drug money then?
>>11990
Should we seize people's property on suspicion? Stop being so fucking dumb anon, this is a place for intelligent discussion
For my two cents, this is wrong as hell and just goes to show how utterly broken our legal system is that this should happen in the first place, much less actually have to be battled out for SEVERAL YEARS.
>>11992
>Thinks he owns his money
>Calls me stupid
Money isn't your property. The state owns it. It's merely in your possession.
> selling a duffelbag full of cannabis
> getting 100k for it
No
>Am I the only one who sees that these are two drug dealers who just sold a duffel bag full of weed and were speeding back home with their $100k and got busted for being stupid?
"Innocent until proven guilty" ring a bell? It shouldn't matter how they got the money if it can't be shown to be connected to a crime.
in related news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/23/the-feds-just-shut-down-a-huge-program-that-lets-cops-take-your-stuff-and-keep-it/
>>11990
no drugs, no crime. you seem to be endorsing the tactics of East Berlin. why do you hate America?
>>11996
Innocent until proven guilty != detainment under suspicion.
>>11999
>detainment under suspicion.
You mean theft.
>>11999
Are you trolling, stupid, or hyperstatist?
>>11988
That's because the Federal reserve doesn't want millions of Americans with billions in liquidity to collapse their printed bullshit mine.
If there's no due process they have no right to seize this money. It makes no sense and courts exist for a reason. The burden of proof is on the accusers and if they can't give evidence then they shouldn't be allowed to seize property.
>>11988
Charge them with a crime, convict them, and then keep the assets gained through the crime
Allowing police to take property without proof or even a charge is absurd
>>11993
The state doesn't own my money. They give it worth
>>11993
>Money isn't your property. The state owns it. It's merely in your possession.
Oh boy, I guess I'm just 'borrowing' my organs from the state as well.
>>12074
Some countries have been playing with the idea of mandatory/opt-out organ donation.
>>11998
Isn't this what caused the revolutionary war against the British? Like when the judges were taking profits from seized property? This is worse because it's not even going to court, effectively nullifying the entire purpose of due process.
How would you know what goes on reddit..?
Civil forfeiture is a perversion of the American justice system. It does lead to some rather hilariously named court cases though.
My favorite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately_64,695_Pounds_of_Shark_Fins
The shark fins won.
>>11993
how does the state own everyones money? what is this? should they take all your money and shit then? the fuck is wrong with you? keep speaking like this and the state is fucking dead as far as im concerned, and i dont even have a job or money.
>>11993
But did they return the duffel bag?
>>12112 legal doesnt matter (legal corrupt faggots), nobody really own anyones money you fucking idiot
>>12112
if they want your money are you gonna let them butt fuck you?
>>12113
You are indecipherable.
>>12115
The government legally owns the bits of paper which they've imbued with worth. If they want to take them back then they're within their rights to reclaim them. That's the long and short of it.
Should you be compensated for the loss of the perceived worth of the paper? Almost certainly, but that's technically not the issue at hand.
thanks for telling me the state legally owns my money (that i dont have any) or something, now im just gonna steal everything, ive already stolen 100$ worth but got caught stealing 3$ worth of stuff, now with what you said i have a reason to keep doing it, haha.
>>12119
I hope you don't steal any physical objects such as consumables or electronics, those legally belong to their owners.
>>12118
I'm surprised people fell for your bait as long as they did.
>>12120
o well, gotta eat bro, no electronics are unnecessary
>>12121
Do me a solid anon: go down to your local police station and burn some cash in front of the officers. Then ask them why they're arraigning you. It'll be because you're destroying property which ultimately doesn't belong to you.
>>12123
and arson
>>12123
as a police officer id just be like "cool story bro" and proceed to do my job
>>11988
even if it is potentially true HAVE YOU HEARD OF FAIR TRIAL YOU FUCKING IDIOT
if the state owns my money then why do they have to give me a trial first before taking it from me? checkmate obama.
>>11988
You're the only one who doesn't have a problem with siezing peoples property without even formally accusing them of anything. If they are guilty they need to be proven so in a court of law. Why do you hate due process?
>>11988
You know what . Fuck
https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks
>>12125
I'd file a complaint.
The state technically owns your money, also its value isn't fixed which is why the rich don't keep tons of it laying around and buy things like property whose value can be adjusted for inflation.
That being said, they should take the state to trial for unlawful seizure of property.
>>11993
Last I checked legal tender is just a fucking iou from the goverment that you can trade around
>>11988
Uh . . . is there gonna be a trial???????????
If I was a cop, I'd come to your house and take all your money and tell you YOU must be a drug dealer, because why else would you have cash?
Do you really want to live in North Korea? You want your kids to grow up where they're guilty until proven innocent?
>>12188
>they should take the state to trial for unlawful seizure of property.
So then the state can investigate itself and decide that it did nothing wrong.
What a fantastic system, lets give it more money and make it bigger.
>>12105
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_v._Commissioner
There is no battling it out. They were never going to get that money back in the first place.
>>11990
Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law is fundamentally fascist. It harms all of us. If they've committed a crime, arrest them and put them on trial.
>>12808
>This comment is nonsense.
What a thoughtful and critical rebuttal.
>>12986
Had you said "banknotes" instead of money, you would have been technically right, but that wouldn't have given you (You)''s (it would also be irrelevant). So you deliberately fudged your comment to get millennials to argue with you, which isn't that hard. There's a website for that shit, it's called reddit.com. You should go back there if you want to shit up boards with tedious millennial arguments.
>>11988
If you don't understand what is wrong with this, if you need any help, then you're not American.
Please GTFO
