[Koliakis]

> Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners will detain them and turn them over to law enforcement, who will take their money without any cause for suspicion and without filing any criminal charges

This is insanity.

[Shivetya]

What is more insane is that only through Class Action can this suit succeed. Why? Because as the current trick by government agencies is that if they think the court case will go against them they return the money before the ruling. This voids the case in the eyes of the court by worse puts the victim on the hook for attorney fees[0]

[0]https://reason.com/2019/11/21/with-this-forfeiture-trick-inn...

[eschaton]

The US Supreme Court just recently struck this down in a first amendment case, where a university said “Hey, we changed the rules, you now have no standing to sue.” The Supreme Court said “There was still damage, so they still have a cause of action.”

[salawat]

People underestimate the impact of that case. 2nd Amendmemt cases can actually have a leg to stand on if a group is willing to push it hard enough. There's still the certiorari hurdle to traverse, but it'd be nice to see the justices set their minds to it.

[throwaway0a5e]

4th as well as 2nd will benefit greatly from closing that loophole but it will likely take a decade or more for the courts to hand out a sufficient number of "no you idiots this is covered under our previous ruling X" type of rulings.

[throwaway0a5e]

This trick has been going on for 30+yr. States have been using "well we gave it back u no longer have standing" to keep their unconstitutional laws out of the courts since at least the 90s.

[tyingq]

Yeah, I don't understand how civil forfeiture hasn't been quashed by now. It's not just the TSA and DEA, all sorts of law enforcement do it.

[Aerroon]

I don't understand how civil asset forfeiture isn't called stealing. Legal or not, the people doing it are no better than thieves and robbers. They should (probably) be socially treated the same way as well.

[SturgeonsLaw]

Law enforcement reserves the right to commit murder with impunity, why would theft keep them up at night?

[LocalH]

I think it's a weird perversion of the "monopoly on violence" that the state claims.

[mlindner]

Because the drug war, and racism.

[andrei_says_]

Because it targets people from lower classes/castes?

(On caste system in the US I recommend “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” by Isabel Wilkerson)

[lotsofpulp]

I don’t understand how neither party has made it a top issue to address.

[throwaway0a5e]

Because the blue states love seizing guns and the red states love seizing drugs (and any assets the person who has either happens to have with them).

[warkdarrior]

> Because the blue states love seizing guns

Citation needed.

[mannerheim]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EPRO_in_the_United_S...

[viraptor]

That's with judge's permission. It's a planned action, not a "we stopped you, by the way, give it to us".

[tyingq]

I suppose nobody's been dumb enough to do it to a Senator or their inner circle.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

of the few issues that reach at both ends of the isle, this is one of them.

somehow, this has avoided sunshine for far too long

[csomar]

This is the case also for the UK, Europe, Canada and New Zealand. If you don't have "proof" that this money is legitimate and belongs to you, then it'll be seized.

[mijamo]

There is no civil forfeiture as such in Europe. The UK and Ireland have a weaker version of the US situation but no other member of the European Union has it. What you are talking about (crossing a border with over a certain amount of money in cash without declaring it) is a completely separated topic that exists basically everywhere and is not a problem because it is very clear what you should and should not do (do not cross a border with thousands of dollars/euros in cash without declaring it to customs).