22-year-old who set off to start a new life with $16K, has it seized by DEA

avcpl

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
1,147
Location
So Cal; LA county
The Injustice of Civil-Asset Forfeiture

The latest victim: a 22-year-old who set off to start a new life with $16,000 to his name, only to have it all seized by the DEA.


Rick Wilking / Reuters
Joseph Rivers left his hometown of Romulus, Michigan, boarded a train, and headed for Los Angeles, California, where he hoped to become a music-video producer. The 22-year-old says he’d been saving money for years to make the trip and that his mother had scraped together some additional cash to help him get his start.

In total he carried $16,000.

At the Amtrak station in Albuquerque, New Mexico, men boarded the train and seized his money, leaving him penniless and without means to go on to L.A. or return home.

They were federal employees.

* * *

Federal-law enforcement officials frequently seize money and other property at the point of a gun from Americans who’ve neither been charged nor convicted of any crime. The term meant to give this a veneer of legitimacy is “civil-asset forfeiture.” That day in New Mexico, it was the Drug Enforcement Administration that made the seizure.

The Albuquerque Journal relates the account given by the victim’s lawyer, Michael Pancer:

A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why. When Rivers replied that he was headed to LA to make a music video, the agent asked to search his bags. Rivers complied. He was the only passenger singled out for a search by DEA agents – and the only black person on his portion of the train, Pancer said. In one of the bags, the agent found the cash, still in the Michigan bank envelope. “I even allowed him to call my mother, a military veteran and (hospital) coordinator, to corroborate my story,” Rivers said. “Even with all of this, the officers decided to take my money because he stated that he believed that the money was involved in some type of narcotic activity.”

Rivers was left penniless, his dream deferred.

“These officers took everything that I had worked so hard to save and even money that was given to me by family that believed in me,” Rivers said in his email. “I told (the DEA agents) I had no money and no means to survive in Los Angeles if they took my money. They informed me that it was my responsibility to figure out how I was going to do that.”

Other travelers had witnessed what happened. One of them, a New Mexico man I’ve written about before but who asked that I not mention his name, provided a way for Rivers to get home, contacted attorneys – and me. “He was literally like my guardian angel that came out of nowhere,” Rivers said.
I spoke briefly with Prancer by phone. He says he is very confident in the challenge to the seizure and doesn’t anticipate any compelling evidence from the DEA. Of course, that’s just one side of the story.

What does the DEA say in its defense? Sean Waite, the agent in charge for the DEA in Albuquerque, also talked to the newspaper:

Waite said that in general DEA agents look for “indicators” such as whether the person bought an expensive one-way ticket with cash, if the person is traveling from or to a city known as a hot spot for drug activity, if the person’s story has inconsistencies or if the large sums of money found could have been transported by more conventional means.

“We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty,” Waite said. “It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”


continues:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...g-injustice-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/392999/


MOTHER FUCKERS!!!!!!!!!
 
This is one of the most outrageous stories i have heard in a long time. This should go to the supreme court but it never will.:(
 
This has been going on for a long time. It's pretty obvious they target gamblers and poker players leaving casinos.

(multitudinous articles online regarding this)

Here's one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

Stop and Seize: In recent years, thousands of people have had cash confiscated by police without being charged with crimes. The Post looks at the police culture behind the seizures and the people who were forced to fight the government to get their money back.
Part 2: One training firm started a private intelligence-sharing network and helped shape law enforcement nationwide.
Part 3: Motorists caught up in the seizures talk about the experience and the legal battles that sometimes took more than a year.
Part 4: Police agencies nationwide routinely buy vehicles and weapons with money and property seized under federal civil forfeiture law from people who were not charged with a crime.
Part 5: Highway seizure in Iowa fuels debate about asset-forfeiture laws.
Part 6: D.C. police plan for future seizure proceeds years in advance in city budget documents.
Chat transcript​: The reporters behind “Stop and Seize” answered your readers’ about the investigative series.
 
Last edited:
This has been going on for a long time. It's pretty obvious they target gamblers and poker players leaving casinos.

(multitudinous articles online regarding this)

No doubt. But the public usually just glaze over things, but occasionally a particular story will touch a nerve and go viral and possibly snowball into something meaningful.

This article about this kid just might be the lynch-pin; whomever reads it seems to get sickened and outraged. I would like to hope that if it went viral it might cause an awareness...

(I can dream anyway...)

In any event I'm sharing it where I can and hope others do too!
 
This is ridiculous, and not to detract from the real issue of this situation but was there a reason i missed in the original article as to why he was carrying the money in cash? That is quite a large sum of money that would of made more sense to be held in an account, and withdrawn on arrival..

I just don't understand this detail?
 
This is ridiculous, and not to detract from the real issue of this situation but was there a reason i missed in the original article as to why he was carrying the money in cash? That is quite a large sum of money that would of made more sense to be held in an account, and withdrawn on arrival..

I just don't understand this detail?

Could be a variety of reasons.
Such as some people/cultures do not trust their money with large institutions--thinking they may place a hold on it for whatever reason and might not get access to it when needed.
Some people live in areas where going to and from a bank makes you an easy mark.
Lack of knowledge about what it takes to open an account at a bank (some people think you have to have a current job or a steady job--schools normally don't teach these kind of things so if you get bad info from someone you think knows about it, you might believe it to be true).
And of course simply 22-year olds don't always make the wisest choices (I know I didn't at that age) but doesn't mean they or the money is criminal. A more reasonable thing would have been to assume innocence and counsel him on his decision and alert security to provide extra protection. But no...
 
Successful drug dealers dont take the bus or trains , they take cars and planes. This seems like harassment of the poor to me. Why are DEA agents searching people on domestic trips anyway?
 
In a country where infant circumcision is the norm, seriously what the fuck do you guys expect?

I'm not trolling, I'm asking a serious question.

Yet someone carrying money is treated as guilty...even if they prove their innocence.

The world really is going down the fucking drain.
 
^ I don't really get how those two are related at all?? Granted every member of the DEA is a dick skin......
Maybe one day these douche bags will find something better to do than rob innocent civilians they presume shit about.

P.S. dear DEA,
you guys really suck and I hope one day you all struggle to make ends meet after being fired from a job that should have never existed.
 
*sigh* I've said this before when one of these massive asset forfeiture events makes the news. I think what the US government really wants to criminalize, or at the very least strongly discourage, is large sums of money changing hands without their getting a cut of it. The message they're trying to send by making an example out of this guy, is that using cash on any large scale -- or any other form of currency that leaves no paper trail -- isn't OK.

The illegality of drugs is just a convenient cover for the anti-cash task force to hide behind. This is yet another reason why the illegality of drugs is useful for the governing elite. It conveniently keeps them from having to declare the possession of large amounts of cash explicitly illegal, and face the public outcry that would inevitably result.
 
*sigh* I've said this before when one of these massive asset forfeiture events makes the news. I think what the US government really wants to criminalize, or at the very least strongly discourage, is large sums of money changing hands without their getting a cut of it. The message they're trying to send by making an example out of this guy, is that using cash on any large scale -- or any other form of currency that leaves no paper trail -- isn't OK.

The illegality of drugs is just a convenient cover for the anti-cash task force to hide behind. This is yet another reason why the illegality of drugs is useful for the governing elite. It conveniently keeps them from having to declare the possession of large amounts of cash explicitly illegal, and face the public outcry that would inevitably result.

QFT, fucking spot on. A very good point I had considered but you worded it better than I would have ATM.
 
This is so fucked. If the money is presumed to be guilty, shouldnt the stack of cash then be allowed a fair trial in court?
 
Top