"Stop and Seize" (or, why we need Bitcoin...)

[herebittybittybitty]

Just saw this article on the Washington Post -- I think it's a must-read.

"Stop and Seize: Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes"

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?hpid=z2

[shorena]

Assumeing the full seperation of money (BTC) and state (police) how would this be any different?

Sir, that was a clear XY bullshit 17, please make a TX for .08 BTC immediatly to avoid jail. Ill be sitting here eatin m donate till you are done.

[Mike Christ]

Assumeing the full seperation of money (BTC) and state (police) how would this be any different?

Sir, that was a clear XY bullshit 17, please make a TX for .08 BTC immediatly to avoid jail. Ill be sitting here eatin m donate till you are done.

Um, this is hundreds of millions of dollars, that's why it's different.  How are they going to confiscate something they don't even know you have?

[herebittybittybitty]

Assumeing the full seperation of money (BTC) and state (police) how would this be any different?

Sir, that was a clear XY bullshit 17, please make a TX for .08 BTC immediatly to avoid jail. Ill be sitting here eatin m donate till you are done.

The people this article is talking about haven't even been charged with anything or fined for anything. This is people having cash seized because "all them dollars look suspicious."

[shorena]

Oh so the "we need Bitcoin" was not a suggestion to have Bitcoin instead of Fiat? Which would result in the cops "knowing" that you have Bitcoin. Its not like they stop you because they see the dollar bills, they just assume you have cash because everyone has cash. I understood the title as "if we didnt have fiat but bitcoin this would not be possible" which is ofc not true.

-snip-

The people this article is talking about haven't even been charged with anything or fined for anything. This is people having cash seized because "all them dollars look suspicious."

While I originally had "charged" in there, I removed it to avoid this missunderstanding. I was trying to point out that the same "seizing" is possible with bitcoin as long as bitcoin is reasonably well adopted. To avoid further confusion my first sentence was meant to clearifiy that in a world without fiat this would still happen. So my point still stands: this has nothing to do with fiat or bitcoin, the medium that transfers the wealth is interchangable in this case. Could be bottlecaps or goldnuggets. Missuse of power is not solved by cryptocurrencies.

[master-P]

I don't understand how the police would even be able to seize the money in the first place, or even be able to know know about the money. If a person is aware of their rights then they should not have consented to a search (there are very few reasons to ever consent to a police search, and you should withhold consent in 99%+ of the time).

I am also surprised that this has not been challenged constitutionally as these laws would likely deprive people of their 5th amendment rights to due process and the right to receive just compensation when the government takes your property.

I agree that someone with bitcoin would likely result in their bitcoin not being seized as long as there is a backup of your private keys in a location apart from you and there is sufficient security on your phone/wallet to prevent the police from sending your bitcoin to an address they control. 

[Beliathon]

Just saw this article on the Washington Post -- I think it's a must-read.

"Stop and Seize: Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes"

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?hpid=z2

This is called "civil asset forfeiture", which can be easily understood as "policing for profit" or "legitimized government highway robbery"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hytkAaoF2k Quick 2 minute video explaining Civil Asset Forfeiture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU highway robbery in Tennessee

[itsAj]

Just saw this article on the Washington Post -- I think it's a must-read.

"Stop and Seize: Aggressive police take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes"

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?hpid=z2

This is called "civil asset forfeiture", which can be easily understood as "policing for profit" or "legitimized government highway robbery"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hytkAaoF2k Quick 2 minute video explaining Civil Asset Forfeiture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU highway robbery in Tennessee

Just because something is written in the law does not mean it is legal (it could be unconstitutional). I would argue that these laws are unconstitutional. For one the seizing of property is not allowed without a warrant so if a police officer were to seize money without a warrant or probable cause that a crime was committed then this is clearly against the constitution.

The most crazy story of civil forfeiture is that of when a ~19 year old man was arrested for selling $40 worth of drugs from his parents house. The boy did not own the house. After the boy was arrested the city of Philadelphia (I think, I know it was in PA) seized the parents house because a crime had been committed there.

[Pente]

I don't understand how the police would even be able to seize the money in the first place, or even be able to know know about the money. If a person is aware of their rights then they should not have consented to a search (there are very few reasons to ever consent to a police search, and you should withhold consent in 99%+ of the time).

I am also surprised that this has not been challenged constitutionally as these laws would likely deprive people of their 5th amendment rights to due process and the right to receive just compensation when the government takes your property.

I agree that someone with bitcoin would likely result in their bitcoin not being seized as long as there is a backup of your private keys in a location apart from you and there is sufficient security on your phone/wallet to prevent the police from sending your bitcoin to an address they control. 

I was stopped once and the police asked for permission to search my vehicle. I said "no". So more cops showed up. They pestered me and I said "no". Eventually there were about 10 cops and the last one came up, told the rest to search my vehicle. One cop told him that I refused to give permission. This last cop, who seemed to be in charge, laughed & said "We are cops. Search his vehicle, if we find anything, just claim he gave up permission."

BTW, I had nothing illegal in my vehicle.

My uncle is a retired cop and he use to brag about lying in court. And he wonders why I hate cops.

[itsAj]

I don't understand how the police would even be able to seize the money in the first place, or even be able to know know about the money. If a person is aware of their rights then they should not have consented to a search (there are very few reasons to ever consent to a police search, and you should withhold consent in 99%+ of the time).

I am also surprised that this has not been challenged constitutionally as these laws would likely deprive people of their 5th amendment rights to due process and the right to receive just compensation when the government takes your property.

I agree that someone with bitcoin would likely result in their bitcoin not being seized as long as there is a backup of your private keys in a location apart from you and there is sufficient security on your phone/wallet to prevent the police from sending your bitcoin to an address they control. 

I was stopped once and the police asked for permission to search my vehicle. I said "no". So more cops showed up. They pestered me and I said "no". Eventually there were about 10 cops and the last one came up, told the rest to search my vehicle. One cop told him that I refused to give permission. This last cop, who seemed to be in charge, laughed & said "We are cops. Search his vehicle, if we find anything, just claim he gave up permission."

BTW, I had nothing illegal in my vehicle.

My uncle is a retired cop and he use to brag about lying in court. And he wonders why I hate cops.

One of the key things that you forgot was to say "am I free to go". Unless you are under arrest they are not able to detain you (I think there are a small number of other reasons, but they are also very narrow). If they say that you are free to go then your response should be something along the line of "deuces" and leave.

This shows the importance of recording your interactions with the police. If you record the police officers asking to search your car and you withholding consent but the police search you anyway and arrest you then you can just show the recording to the judge (or if you don't have your phone ask that the police show the judge the phone) and the search should get thrown out and you would likely be released.

[herebittybittybitty]

One of the key things that you forgot was to say "am I free to go". Unless you are under arrest they are not able to detain you (I think there are a small number of other reasons, but they are also very narrow). If they say that you are free to go then your response should be something along the line of "deuces" and leave.

This shows the importance of recording your interactions with the police. If you record the police officers asking to search your car and you withholding consent but the police search you anyway and arrest you then you can just show the recording to the judge (or if you don't have your phone ask that the police show the judge the phone) and the search should get thrown out and you would likely be released.

And we really need to make police recording of themselves (dashcams, wearable cams) universal as well.

[waldox]

the government are acting like criminal thugs and gangs
bitcoin is the peoples saviour!

[johncarpe64]

One of the key things that you forgot was to say "am I free to go". Unless you are under arrest they are not able to detain you (I think there are a small number of other reasons, but they are also very narrow). If they say that you are free to go then your response should be something along the line of "deuces" and leave.

This shows the importance of recording your interactions with the police. If you record the police officers asking to search your car and you withholding consent but the police search you anyway and arrest you then you can just show the recording to the judge (or if you don't have your phone ask that the police show the judge the phone) and the search should get thrown out and you would likely be released.

And we really need to make police recording of themselves (dashcams, wearable cams) universal as well.

I would personally never rely on this. There is no way to guarantee that these will work 100% of the time, and I would suspect that the officer would have advance knowledge as to when it is not working. This would allow the police to follow the letter of the law when they know the recording devices are working and can act shady when they know they are not. Citizens on the other hand will record their interactions with the police much less because they have a false sense of security that the police are usually recording themselves.

[evanito]

I am an avid 4th amendment supporter, this kind of thing outrages me that this right isn't permeated everywhere.
Bitcoin *still* requires security measures for it not to be taken, even by authorities.

[lyth0s]

I am an avid 4th amendment supporter, this kind of thing outrages me that this right isn't permeated everywhere.
Bitcoin *still* requires security measures for it not to be taken, even by authorities.

Cold storage with seed keys

[evanito]

Cold storage with seed keys

I wasn't saying it is a flaw in Bitcoin, but it is a flaw with the user, not securing their wallets.

[herebittybittybitty]

I am an avid 4th amendment supporter, this kind of thing outrages me that this right isn't permeated everywhere.
Bitcoin *still* requires security measures for it not to be taken, even by authorities.

Security measures that are pretty darn quick and easy to take. And if one wants to eschew a financial institution, with Bitcoin you won't have to worry about your "cash" getting seized for no other reason than it catching a good officer's eye.