by Charles Platt
I have no formal legal training, but emigrated from the UK to the US partly because I liked the First Amendment. The wisdom of my decision was affirmed when an erotic novel that I had written in 1969 was seized, in Britain, by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the publisher was jailed for three months. That kind of thing tends to stick in one’s memory. Subsequently, I wrote a nonfiction book titled Anarchy Online, examining and defending every type of internet freedom. These days, I am more interested in writing educational material for young people, such as a recent introductory book on electronics.
So that’s who I am. In my first post I want to talk about asset forfeiture, which has little to do with the core issue of free speech, but which I feel is a growing threat to my general sense of personal liberty.
A couple of weeks ago, where I live in Arizona, my neighbor’s car was seized and towed after a random stop and blood-alcohol test. He tested below the legal limit, but they towed the car anyway, on the principle that any trace at all is evidence of possible impairment. Ultimately he was not charged with anything, but he had to find a ride home (15 miles) in the middle of the night, and had to retrieve the car and pay the towing costs the next day. He is a polite, well-spoken, white-haired retiree.
Here’s another sample. An Arizona resident was unaware that his license had been suspended as a result of procedural errors involving a speeding ticket in another state. When Arizona police discovered his suspended status during a traffic stop, they ignored his protestations and attempts to demonstrate his innocence, took away his truck, and abandoned him on foot in a not-so-good neighborhood. Subsequently he had difficulty retrieving his vehicle.
Cases like these are the reason I no longer drink anything at all if I’m going to drive, and log on to the Arizona DMV web site every few months to check the status of my own license. In other words, I now feel impelled to make sure that the police will have no ready excuse to take my property. This doesn’t quite seem consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
Of course, if drugs are involved, it’s much worse. I live close to Interstate 40, which is supposedly a major drug-running corridor. According to our local newspaper, when a drug-sniffing dog indicated narcotic residues in a car that had been pulled over, a search revealed that the driver was carrying about $100,000 in cash. This of course is a “suspicious sum,” so the police seized it. No drugs were actually found, so the driver was allowed to continue on his way, with no charges against him. Meanwhile, Arizona law, his money was retained by the police department, and if he wants it back, he’ll have to prove that he earned it legally.
Your state may be less corrupt than mine, regarding forfeiture–or may be worse. The Institute for Justice has issued a comparative survey titled “Policing for Profit,” which you can download here.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
Reminds me of the time I drove from Tucson, AZ to Pensacola, FL for Christmas. I only had three days off, so I was intent on going and returning very quickly.
When I was passing through Louisiana, I was pulled over for speeding. My friend and I and her daughter were asked to exit the vehicle. The police officer brought out his K9 unit and had him sniff around the vehicle. Sensing nothing, the police officer opened the back of my SUV and had the dog sniff all the Christmas presents that were wrapped and in the back. The dog found nothing, because their was nothing to be found. The police officer did not like that, so he took each present out and sniffed them himself. Unfortunately, our camcorder was still in the front of the SUV or it would have been a great video. After sniffing each present, he then opened each present to verify its contents. Once he realized it was just a bunch of toys for my nephews and niece, he finally let us go on our way, without a ticket. I should have filed charges against him, but I was just laughing to hard.
I’m not familiar with drug trade routes, but you were probably on a road regularly used by trafficers. The officer probably saw your out-of-state plates and concluded that, of the cars on the road, you were more likely to be in the drug trade.
He definitely went overboard with the whole “personally sniffing and opening presents” thing, but I can’t really fault him for pulling you over in the first place if it was, in fact, for the reasons that I stated.
An out of state plate on I-10 = reasonable suspicion? I think not.
Why is it so unreasonable?
There’s no money in trafficing in-state and Ed here was speeding on what may or may not be a drug trade route. Like I said, I’m not familiar with drug routes, but if that officer was and that road happened to be one then, while not entirely reasonable, it was more reasonable to search his car than some random car.
You say that as if a “drug trade route” is something like the Ho Chi Minh trail. You realize that the mere term “drug trade route” is a little funny, right? So first logical goatse — you invent this concept of a “drug trade route.”
Once you’ve invented the spooky-sounding “drug trade route” it would seem that anyone on a “drug trade route” would be fair game for a search. Wouldn’t they? I mean, if you’re on a “drug trade route,” then you must be involved in the “drug trade” in some manner.
So, once you’ve turned an interstate highway into a “drug trade route,” now you only need to toss in “speeding” — because if you’re on a “drug trade route” and breaking a law, well then by golly, the Fourth Amendment shouldn’t apply! Otherwise this “drug trade route” would become a “drug superhighway!”
So *now* we find our $100,000 in cash in the car, and well by golly… this citizen isn’t suspected of any particular crime, but why on earth does he have $100,000?
I say, what business is it of mine, the cops, or yours, what he’s doing with $100K in cash? You are still allowed to carry $100K in cash. You are not required to tell anyone why you have it.
No wonder it is so easy for the government to tread on our Constitutional rights — when even reasonably intelligent people adopt the “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about” mentality…. the problem with that is that I guarantee you that you’ve committed at least a misdemeanor a day and a felony a month for the past ten years. (provided you are an adult)
I’m wasn’t arguing with you, Marc, just asking where you’re coming from.
Really the problem is that I’m bad with words. Sorry about that. I don’t condone what the officer did and I agree that it’s dumb, but I can understand what might have gone through his head if he believed in the premises of “this road being a trade route” and “trafficers are usually out-of-staters.” It’s perfectly reasonable, but if the premises are incorrect then the conclusion probably will be too.
Sort of like a defendant who was at the scene of a crime at the time the crime took place and matches the description of the perp, but the description is wrong.
Is it unreasonable to believe that he did it, given only the first three bits of info?
Now this happened back in 1994, and the officer did state that they were used to drugs being brought across state lines. I was a much younger and naive person back then, so I didn’t object to him searching the vehicle. As far as license plates, I was still in the process of moving from Pensacola to Tucson, so I did not have an Arizona Plate, I still had my Personalized Florida plate, which was my last name of McKeown.
I just thought the officer was funny.
And people are worried about healthcare leading to tyranny. As you point out, Mr. Platt, many of these infringements actually occur at the state level. It is ironic that Arizona, a supposed bastion of libertarianism, is one of the worst.
It is funny that the same wankers who are crying about healthcare = tyranny / fascism / stalinism / gout are the same who would say “if you’re not trafficking drugs, then you have nothing to worry about”
Who cares about the 100 grand? If he earned it legally, he can prove it, and probably can figure something out anyway.
Oh, you have a cause? Great job, douchebag.
Shouldn’t the presumption be that he earned it legally? I mean, the cops get to take your money until you can prove that you earned it?
I don’t know what you “teach,” but it clearly isn’t constitutional law or civics. Do you think that the guy can just show up at the police station with his tax returns and they’ll give it back, or do you think he might have to hire a lawyer? Do you think lawyers work for free? By the time he gets the $100K back, which won’t come easily, you can rest assured that it will be whittled down to $80K.
In cash at a traffic stop? I’m all for liberties, but common sense should matter also. Also, I don’t think it is a stretch that the police followed the law here. Not that presuming otherwise is fun for blogging–you know, for effect, police state, everyone.
I’m still missing the “common sense” issue. Yes, if you get pulled over and they find $100K in your car, what “common sense” rule should override the Constitution? Should there be a presumption that if you have $100K in cash, you’re up to no good, and thus you should lose the money unless you can prove that you earned it legitimately?
Hey Marco,
The common sense is the money is drug money, right? What first popped into your mind about where the money came from? The individual, if tried, surely can still be considered innocent until proven guilty. It wouldn’t get that far either way, right?
Otherwise, if it is someone who just distrusts banks, surely it can be proven. Largely, the details of the specific case matter, moreso than if if you are inclined to belive we live in an authoritarian state or ALL people who stash 100 grand in a car are surely drug dealers.
Philosophers are great, but the police do need to be able do their job, and the law does allow them to use common sense.
Since when is money seized because “common sense” says this-or-that?
I once travelled half way across the country with $30,000 in my suitcase, because I was planning to buy a car in Oregon and couldn’t wait for a wire transfer. So I guess if I had been stopped, common sense would have told the cops to take my money.
As for proving one’s innocence: If I had more time I could tell the story of proving that I had legally earned the $10,000 I wanted to use as bail money for a friend. NY State has a law allowing it to REFUSE bail money if it appears to have come from a suspicious source. I had bank statements and other forms of proof, but it was still a horrendous task to prove that my money was innocent.
Hey Teach –
When the kids say “It’s a free country!” they’re actually on to something. The problem is that proving “You can’t make me” to government thugs is expensive and painful.
Yeah man, the children have so much to teach us if we just listen, right?
The common sense is the money is drug money, right?
Why is that “common sense”? It is “common sense” that anyone in possession of more than a certain number of dollars in cash is a drug trafficker, and thus must prove that the money came from a legitimate source?
You’re too fucking retarded to read this blog. Go read someone else’s.
Common sense for me, reasonable suspicion for trained law enforsement officers.
Police State, I’m scared! Police State, I’m scared! Police State, I’m scared! Police State, I’m scared! Police State, I’m scared! Police State, I’m scared! Police State, I’m scared!
Okay teacher. I think you’re wrong–very wrong–but let’s say for the argument you’re right, that 100k=reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot (nevermind that a warrantless search or seizure is per se an unreasonable search or seizure). For the argument, let’s pretend you’re right.
What about $50k? $10k? $3k? $1k? $300? Where’s the line? Who drew it? Your position, going forward, would give permission to officers to do nearly whatever they wish–legally or not.
If the State wants to make carrying whatever sum of cash sufficient for reasonable suspicion, they can try to pass such a law (and see if it bucks against Constitutional problems in all kinds of ways). They have not.
So instead what your position advocates for are officers seizing people and people’s stuff because they feel like doing so. Swell. I thought we fought a war over that kind of thing.
RE: “What about $50k? $10k? $3k 1k? $300?”
If you have one hair, do you have a beard? If you have two hairs, do you have a beard? If you have three hairs, do you have a beard?
A bunch of retards around here, or maybe that stench is someone spilled the bongwater.
What about people that don’t like to carry cash at all?
When I lived in Las Vegas, before moving here to West Lafayette, IN, I always kept at least one $10 bill in my wallet. The reason? Police have been known to arrest people for vagrancy. I have even heard that their are similar situations in other cities. In this age of the instant debit card, how would you handle being accused of vagrancy by not having a minimum amount of cash on hand, and knowing that too much cash could result in accusations of illegal activity?
Police State I’m scared. Police State I’m scared.
Eh. You could try to answer the (a?) question instead if tossing up the “retard” word. I see my work here is done.
The question doesn’t deserve an answer, because it is a logical fallacy–the continuum fallacy, also known as the fallacy of the beard. The specific case matters, but this is a rant website, so what difference does it make anyway?
Arizonans like to think they’re a bastion of libertarianism, but most of those “libertarians” love their authority figures.
Exhibit A: Joe Arpaio.
DownsizDC.org
Go there.
Sign up.
This is one of their main issues. Join our army and tell these bastards you’re tired of their fascist crap.
Fuck, that’s downsizedc.org with an e. Damn my jittery fingers.
Very interesting to see (a couple of) people defending arbitrary seizure. I assume this is because they think it will never happen to them. Well, my neighbor thought that too. The white-haired elderly man who was very polite to the police, who then seized his car.
Incidentally Arizona earns a D in the Institute for Justice servey of forfeiture laws, but it is by no means the lowest state on the scale.
To me, this is a constitutional issue. Because of the vital importance of defending our nation from the scourge of drugs, the Fourth Amendment seems to have been circumvented. I’d say that’s a matter for concern.
New Law in Washington State allows for the prosecutor to seize the vehicle (even if not legally owned by the operator) used in the commission of a second DUI offense. The best part is the prosecutor can put a lien on the vehicle pending the outcome of the trial, so Defendants/Owner can’t sell the car before a guilty conviction.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.5058
You’ll need to get a Designated Driver for the old Mid-life-Crisis Car (Yellow Porsche convertible)
-Feldman
[…] Seizures (not the epileptic kind) « The Legal Satyricon […]
internet defamation…
[…]Seizures (not the epileptic kind) « The Legal Satyricon[…]…