# Police are gamers too! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 24, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280 "2008-11-24T17:44:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/101 "2008-12-02T01:00:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not aware of any cases of seizures under the statute I mention that have placed the onus on the owner instead of the government. Are you? You might not remember, but we’ve gone over this before. I’ll remind you of your comments the last time we talked about forfeiture laws, and how much they allow the government to fuck people over. [QUOTE=Bricker] Your second link is persuasive: there are apparently seizures going on systematically in violation of the law, including a systematic practice of filing criminal charges only when the seizures are contested, suggesting that the practice is retaliatory. This is state, not federal; and not New York, still, it makes your point very well, and I agree with you now. [/QUOTE] Now, it might very well be possible, even likely, that you’ll eventually get your shit back, assuming that everyone on the government side abides perfectly by the law, that you don’t allow yourself to be intimidated, that you aren’t wrongfully charged simply because you contest the forfeiture, etc., but it doesn’t change the fact that there are systematic abuses within the system that aren’t nearly as easy to overcome as it is being made to appear. It also doesn’t change the fact that seizures are pretty close to a “presumption of guilt”, when we like to think that our legal system follows “ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.” ---
**Author:** ![ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c77e96/32.png) [@ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ed)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/102 "2008-12-02T02:38:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From the very link you provide: > > (Emphasis added). My mistake, and I appreciate the correction. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/103 "2008-12-02T04:22:03Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Nope, I’m not aware and I’m not gonna research it atm. I’m busy frying other fish. > > I’m just saying that an organization that will twist words and logic the way the feds have with respect to the commerce clause would have little trouble finding ways to get the result they want re: seizures and forfeitures with (or despite) the statute you cited, IMO. This is not an argument remarkable for either cogency or factual support. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/104 "2008-12-02T04:23:44Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > You might not remember, but we’ve gone over this before. I’ll remind you of your comments the last time we talked about forfeiture laws, and how much they allow the government to fuck people over. > > Now, it might very well be possible, even likely, that you’ll eventually get your shit back, assuming that everyone on the government side abides perfectly by the law, that you don’t allow yourself to be intimidated, that you aren’t wrongfully charged simply because you contest the forfeiture, etc., but it doesn’t change the fact that there are systematic abuses within the system that aren’t nearly as easy to overcome as it is being made to appear. It also doesn’t change the fact that seizures are pretty close to a “presumption of guilt”, when we like to think that our legal system follows “ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.” I’m only correcting the claim that the onus is on the owner of the property to prove he (or his property) is innocent. Do not mistake this minor correction for my wholesale endorsement of the forfeiture system. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/105 "2008-12-02T05:44:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m only correcting the claim that the onus is on the owner of the property to prove he (or his property) is innocent. Do not mistake this minor correction for my wholesale endorsement of the forfeiture system. When [you have to sue the government to get your property back](http://www.airportbusiness.com/web/online/Airline-and-Airport-Security-News/Woman-Found-Carrying-Nearly-47-000-in-Bra-at-Airport-Sues-Government/5$2481), that is somehow different from the owner having to prove their innocence? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/106 "2008-12-02T06:42:35Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > When [you have to sue the government to get your property back](http://www.airportbusiness.com/web/online/Airline-and-Airport-Security-News/Woman-Found-Carrying-Nearly-47-000-in-Bra-at-Airport-Sues-Government/5$2481), that is somehow different from the owner having to prove their innocence? There ya go, **Bricker**. 😃 Ask and ye shall receive! Praise Bob! Any second now, I expect you will either abandon posting in this thread, or try and claim that this is different somehow. Prove me wrong or prove me right. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/107 "2008-12-02T06:57:37Z")
Hey **Bricker**! Check this one out! [‘Did I Just Get Robbed?’](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91555835) > [@](#): > > On Oct. 20, 2005, Gonzalez says he was driving south on U.S. Highway 281 from Austin to Brownsville to look at a car and buy a gravestone for his dying aunt. Gonzalez, who owns a car lot, was carrying $10,032 in a briefcase. > > \ > > The deputies handed Gonzalez a waiver: If he signed over the money and did not claim the currency, he could walk away free. If he did not sign the waiver, he would be arrested for money-laundering. Gonzalez signed the waiver and gave up rights to his money. > > “So at that time we got in our car and we left, still trying to figure out what just happened. We got officers that took our cash. We got officers that told us we can’t get an attorney. So I’m thinking, are these guys officers of law? Did I just get robbed of my money?” > > Gonzalez hired an attorney, who filed a federal civil rights lawsuit. The county fought it, and lost. In April, the county returned his $10,032 and paid him $110,000 in damages, plus attorney’s fees. Had to sue to get his money back. Taken from him. Seized under the very statute you quoted. Falsely. At this point, you’re probably wondering if you can get away with saying that one or two cases “isn’t statistically significant”. Go ahead, try that and one out for size. 😃 btw, it only took a quick google for “cash seizures” to come up with this hit, on the first page. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2008, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/108 "2008-12-02T07:07:03Z")
Yo! **Bricker**! The courts are in on it now too! [Court: No evidence of crime? Cash seizure OK](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13415622/) > [@](#): > > Authorities were correct to assume nearly $125,000 they seized from a man’s car during a traffic stop may have been connected to narcotics trafficking, despite finding no drugs in the vehicle, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. > > \ > > “We believe that the evidence as a whole demonstrates … that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense,” the court wrote. “We have adopted the commonsense view that bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking.” So just like the commerce clause is cited whenever there is cause to maybe think that possibly something might in the future affect interstate commerce in some way, now it’s ok to seize cash because it might, at some time in either the past or the future, possibly maybe have had something to do with drugs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/109 "2008-12-03T01:56:43Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > When [you have to sue the government to get your property back](http://www.airportbusiness.com/web/online/Airline-and-Airport-Security-News/Woman-Found-Carrying-Nearly-47-000-in-Bra-at-Airport-Sues-Government/5$2481), that is somehow different from the owner having to prove their innocence? No, if somehow the owner has to sue to get her money back, then you’re right. Unfortunately, it’s unclear to me whether she needs to sue. She apparently HAS sued, but is she simply trying to force the government’s hand? That is – is there already an asset forfeiture suit by the government against her? Was it completed with a finding against her? Is it still pending? Or are you suggesting the government simply took the money and said to her, “Sue us to get it back!” in blatant violation of the existing law? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/110 "2008-12-03T02:03:49Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Hey **Bricker**! Check this one out! > > [‘Did I Just Get Robbed?’](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91555835) > > Had to sue to get his money back. Taken from him. Seized under the very statute you quoted. Falsely. Well, no. They seized the moeny because he waived his right to it. In other words, they “followed” those statutes; he surrendered his claim to the money. Of course, the way in which they compelled him to execute that waiver was highly illegal. > [@](#): > > At this point, you’re probably wondering if you can get away with saying that one or two cases “isn’t statistically significant”. Go ahead, try that and one out for size. 😃 > > btw, it only took a quick google for “cash seizures” to come up with this hit, on the first page. How many cash seizures happen every week? Claiming that one, two, or ten incidents since the year 2000 represents The Way It’s Done is a gross error. I bet I can find ten incidents of cops planting evidence on suspects; I don’t hear too many people saying that this is the ordianry state of affairs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/111 "2008-12-03T02:06:09Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Yo! **Bricker**! > > The courts are in on it now too! > > [Court: No evidence of crime? Cash seizure OK](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13415622/) > > So just like the commerce clause is cited whenever there is cause to maybe think that possibly something might in the future affect interstate commerce in some way, now it’s ok to seize cash because it might, at some time in either the past or the future, possibly maybe have had something to do with drugs. Except that the standard is not, as you claim, “…at some time in either the past or the future, possibly maybe have had something to do with drugs…” It’s unclear to me how you can make this claim, when the portion of your post immediately preceeding it was the court’s opinion: “…there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Krebbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5fc32e/32.png) [@Mr.Krebbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Krebbs)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/112 "2008-12-03T02:18:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s unclear to me how you can make this claim, when the portion of your post immediately preceeding it was the court’s opinion: “…there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense.” Judging by the information in the article, I think it is disturbing that the court came to this opinion. It seems to me that the judges in question based the decision on the facts that the narcotics dog smelled traces of drugs and that Gonzolez had lied about being arrested for DUI, carrying cash and about who the vehicle had been rented by. I sincerely hope that there were more facts presented in the case but excepted by the news article. Otherwise, the whole situation disgusts me. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/113 "2008-12-03T02:52:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except that the standard is not, as you claim, “…at some time in either the past or the future, possibly maybe have had something to do with drugs…” It’s unclear to me how you can make this claim, when the portion of your post immediately preceeding it was the court’s opinion: “…there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense.” You left out part of the sentence. > [@](#): > > We believe that the evidence as a whole demonstrates … that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense They believe. That’s not a fact, **Bricker**. That’s faith. And what is faith? > [@](#): > > 1. belief that is not based on proof ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/114 "2008-12-03T03:00:41Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > They believe. That’s not a fact, **Bricker**. That’s faith. And what is faith? I knew you were stupid, but that just takes the cake. It says right there that the belief was based on evidence! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/115 "2008-12-03T03:10:21Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > You left out part of the sentence. > > They believe. That’s not a fact, **Bricker**. That’s faith. And what is faith? There have been stupider comments posted on these boards. But not many. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2008, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280/116 "2008-12-03T03:39:31Z")
\ Ok, maybe I over-reached on that comment. 😃 Still, without much digging I was able to find cases where the statute you cited was abused, and the onus was then on the citizen to prove their innocence and/or wrong-doing on the part of the state. And as I predicted, your response was along the lines that it was “statistically insignificant”. > [@Bricker](#): > > How many cash seizures happen every week? > > Claiming that one, two, or ten incidents since the year 2000 represents The Way It’s Done is a gross error. I bet I can find ten incidents of cops planting evidence on suspects; I don’t hear too many people saying that this is the ordianry state of affairs. I never claimed that it was business as usual. I don’t think anyone here did. But it does happen, and it should not. > [@wiki](#): > > There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Almost all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a “preponderance of the evidence” that it is not. [cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forfeiture) Heck, we wouldn’t even have this thread if it hadn’t happened. BTW, anyone heard anything more about the OP? Did he get his Xbox back? Or that being handled by the same person who is return Sarah Palin’s clothes to the RNC? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-are-gamers-too/474280.md?page=5)