Private Police Intelligence Network Shares Data and Targets Cash 142
Advocatus Diaboli writes Operating in collaboration with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal entities, Black Asphalt members exchanged tens of thousands of reports about American motorists, many of whom had not been charged with any crimes, according to a company official and hundreds of internal documents obtained by The Post. For years, it received no oversight by government, even though its reports contained law enforcement sensitive information about traffic stops and seizures, along with hunches and personal data about drivers, including Social Security numbers and identifying tattoos. Black Asphalt also has served as a social hub for a new brand of highway interdictors, a group that one Desert Snow official has called 'a brotherhood.' Among other things, the site hosts an annual competition to honor police who seize the most contraband and cash on the highways. As part of the contest, Desert Snow encouraged state and local patrol officers to post seizure data along with photos of themselves with stacks of currency and drugs. Some of the photos appear in a rousing hard-rock video that the Guthrie, Okla.-based Desert Snow uses to promote its training courses.
I wonder .... (Score:1)
Time to exchange data on the American cops... (Score:5, Insightful)
...who do this sort of "civil forfeiture." Badge numbers, names, pictures, locations, perhaps home addresses and phones.
I'm sure they won't mind, just as they won't mind a "civil" lawsuit or two aimed in their direction. After all, fair's fair, eh?
Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember a site like this about 5 years ago. Seems the owner was arrested and the site taken down for "interfering with an ongoing investigation" and "Aiding and abiding the commission of a Class A Felony"
Seems one of the undercover cops who's information was posted was shot and killed. They linked it back to the site and charged the owner.
Though I agree with the idea and agree that making it public is a great idea, just know that they will do anything they can to keep there actions hidden from the public.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't we all with that much cash on the line? No one wants their empires taking in any less than the previous day...
Re: (Score:1)
No one wants to get shot, not even an undercover cop.
Re: (Score:2)
but they're one of the few groups of people who accept the risk exists and chose to do a job anyway.
both sides cops and criminals as long as they're killing each other and not random bi-standards then i'm fine with it
Re: (Score:3)
both sides cops and criminals as long as they're killing each other and not random bi-standards then i'm fine with it
...said the criminal who has committed multiple counts of felonies and smaller crimes. If you want to keep that attitude you might want to look into reducing the absurdly large number of overly broad laws. And then design a gun that can identify and refuse to shoot at law-abiding citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Inspectors and Enforcers use large handguns called "Dominators"—special weapons designed to fire only at those with a higher-than-acceptable Crime Coefficient.
Re:Time to exchange data on the American cops... (Score:4, Insightful)
but they're one of the few groups of people who accept the risk exists and chose to do a job anyway.
Bullshit.
Want to know who puts their life on the line every day at their job? Fishermen. Lumberjacks. Farm hands. Ironworkers. Garbagemen. Miners. Ranch hands. Truck drivers. Roofers. Roughnecks. Pilots. Bricklayers. Concrete workers. The blue collar workers that feed us and house us and move our goods are the people "who accept the risk exists and chose to do a job anyway"...even today, some of these jobs are 20x more likely to kill you than being a cop.
Police officer doesn't even make the list of the top fifty most lethal professions. It is on par with bartender and professional athlete in terms of risk.
Re: (Score:2)
The secret service would say the same, even though it is specifically written in to their job description.
Undercover cop issue a non argument. (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is random confiscation (aka. "theft") by local police. I don't have any problem with confiscation as long as a crime was committed and the defendant proven guilty. What isn't tolerable in any way, shape, or form is confiscation of my property because some dimwitted, local yokel cop *thought* about drugs while looking at my car.
Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no longer willing to accept "dimwitted local yokel".
I go straight to assuming they know damned well they can do it, that they benefit from it, and since they don't really require any proof, why not do it and make themselves look good? I don't believe it's credible they do this in good faith.
And, of course, I'm sure they skim a little off the top for themselves.
The rest of the police complain that it's a few bad apples who do this, and that it makes the rest of them look bad. If the honest cops want to stop this perception, start arresting the crooked ones.
Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. (Score:5, Interesting)
In January last year, David hired himself and his top trainers out as a roving private interdiction unit for the district attorney’s office in rural Caddo County, Okla. Working with local police, Desert Snow contract employees took in more than $1 million over six months from drivers on the state’s highways, including Interstate 40 west of Oklahoma City. Under its contract, the firm was allowed to keep 25 percent of the cash.
Aggravated Robbery (Score:3, Insightful)
Means, motive, opportunity.
Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the honest cops want to stop this perception
There are no honest cops. Any decent, non-abusive, non-corrupt person who joins up is drummed out of the force within a year.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If people can just "end up missing" in your town, then it's not because you have good cops.
Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. (Score:5, Informative)
Even worse it's using things like RICO; which are intended for ongoing criminal enterprises (like a cartel or organized crime) as a tool to steal money from individuals.
Civil forfeiture consists of your property being the defendant, and you have no standing in the case.
Nothing better than seizing an asset, denying the owner standing in the case, and then keeping whatever was seized regardless of criminal charges filed against the owner.
Carrying cash is now essentially illegal. Ideally the police would need to prove illegal actions to keep it, or worse, you'd have to prove it was legit. But no; now they just assume it's dirty, and keep it -- with or without a charge (let alone a conviction).
Re: (Score:2)
It's things like this which convince me that the majority of the Supreme Court justices don't give a flying f*ck about the text of the constitution. Instead, they make up ridiculous justifications for any pro-police/pro-government/anti-civil rights judgment.
Re: (Score:2)
has the civil forfeiture issue even made it to the supreme court? I'd be amazed if the lower courts would allow that to happen. (lots of police departments might miss out on easy cash, if a precedent was set.)
Re:Undercover cop issue a non argument. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have any problem with confiscation as long as a crime was committed and the defendant proven guilty.
You should have a problem with it. Even if the defendant is guilty, the punishment should be decided by a judge, not a cop. The current system, where the police department can keep what they confiscate, gives them a HUGE incentive to fabricate evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have any problem with confiscation as long as a crime was committed and the defendant proven guilty.
You should have a problem with it. Even if the defendant is guilty, the punishment should be decided by a judge, not a cop. The current system, where the police department can keep what they confiscate, gives them a HUGE incentive to fabricate evidence.
GP seems to be under the misconception that some sort of evidence is needed. This is how it goes:
1. Cop sees car rolling down the road
2. [sniff, sniff from 1/2 a mile away] Cop "smells" drugs in car
3. Cop impounds car and any valuables he likes as "Civil Forfeiture" [wikipedia.org]
4. Profit!
Note that the owner of impounded property is *never* charged with a crime (unless they object to being robbed by the police, then it's assault on the police or the ever-popular "resisting arrest"), and their only recourse is to h
Re: (Score:2)
Some ways to protect yourself from this:
Here are some other, more long term, ways to protect yourself:
1. Vote for candidates that support individual rights.
2. Do not vote for any candidate that says we need more cops and tougher sentencing.
3. If in doubt, do NOT vote for anyone that is endorsed by the police union or prison guard union.
4. If your state has a referendum process (most western states do, most eastern states don't) then vote for an end to drug prohibition when it appears on your ballot.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't even have to prove anyone guilty. With civil forfeiture they sue the property in this case cash, you don't have standing even if it's your cash and you were never convicted of a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
THIS is why people of my political persuasion are teaching our nine-year-olds how to handle machine guns. We would all rather that little girls be learning to code Swift at that age, but when cops have a license to steal, meaning just grab cash and property without due process and not even to contribute to a general revenue fund but to use it to buy paramilitary toys for themselves, this is what happens:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:1)
THIS is why people of my political persuasion are teaching our nine-year-olds how to handle machine guns.
Good job, there. [azcentral.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a tidbit about that 'culture' that does not come from Fox News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/st... [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never get an Amsterdam stamp on your passport. Go in and out through the Hague.
If you have an Amsterdam stamp on your passport, 'lose it' and get a new one.
Your sphincter will thank you.
Defund (Score:5, Insightful)
Think it is about time to curtail our police state and defund the and repeal the laws that make this possible.
Re: (Score:3)
The question is ... is it legal?
Or is this just one of many ways in which law enforcement no longer considers themselves subject to the law?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That ship has sailed. The transnational, transgenerational wealthy have decided that their little experiment in democracy hasn't worked out for them. You can expect continuing regression to the mean of governments for the foreseeable future. Explicit slavery in your lifetime is a pretty good bet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, in GB nobody fears getting robbed by police. Or getting killed for not dropping to the ground within 100ms.
How's [wikipedia.org] that [wikipedia.org] working [wikipedia.org] out? [wikipedia.org]
Re:Defund (Score:4, Informative)
Those are very relevant examples of the British police incompetence resulting in dead citizens. The thing is... there are four of them, and they occurred in a period of twice as many years. Even if you add up all of the fatal British police shootings since 2000, including ones that were 100% justified, in self-defense, and recorded by the ubiquitous cameras, you will still come to about one tenth of the lowest estimate of police shootings in the US for one year.
The Brits can go years without any fatal police shootings, and the total times service weapons are discharged is usually in the dozens per year. For comparison, last year, there were four fatal police shootings in the US county (no 'r') in which I work. Two in the one where I live, plus a possible bloodbath, in the town were I live, which was avoided because some brave policemen decided to disregard procedure, by rushing and disarming a suspect instead of opening fire on him and his friends.
If anything, I have been amazed at the videos in which British cops subdue maniacs who are waving various weapons around. Make a Google search. You will find videos of literally dozens of cops spending a good portions of an hour in ultimately successful attempts not to kill people who in the US would be getting a bellyful of lead within seconds.
I'm not even going to argue whether it's a good thing that these policemen and policewomen are risking their lives to capture those people. I'm not going to say that I would want the cops in my town to act like British cops. But it is a fact that British style policing results in a lot fewer lethal shootings that ours, per capita.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to my friend who had her long time friend stabbed to death. I'm sure he often sits around in the afterlife contemplating how much better his death by stabbing was to a death by gunshot.
Re: (Score:2)
I must be missing something.
1. The original poster praises the British police, and compares it favorably to ours.
2. The next poster lists four examples of the British police killing people, arguably due to the incompetence of the policemen.
3. I point out that his examples are relevant, but spread over the span of eight years, that the British police has shot exactly zero people to death in 2012 and 2013, and that their police killings are a lot less frequent than ours, per capita.
4. You bring up a friend of
Re: (Score:2)
Even if everything was the same economically, culturally between the two, you'd expect about six times more police shootings overall.
Yes, you'd expect six times fewer total shootings, if you expect the same shootings per capita. Instead, they have more that 500 times fewer shootings (over the last 18 years) or about 100 times fewer per capita.
I recognize that doesn't make up for the balance, but there are other factors involved.
Yes, there are, and yes, many of the ones you listed are very relevant. But my
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so weary of this country. Where in the world can I go that respects individual liberties?
Instead of running away, you need to stand and fight. As bad as America is, there is no place where individual rights are more respected. Get involved. Work to end drug prohibition, which is the root of so many problems. Speak out about stupid laws. Most importantly, stay informed, and vote.
Re:Defund (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is ... is it legal?
If you can't find a prosecutor willing to investigate and press charges, it's a meaningless question.
Re: (Score:1)
Right, and presumably if they did find such a prosecutor, all of the people who profit from this scheme would just find reason to harass said prosecutor?
Congratulations, America, you've jumped the shark.
Re: (Score:3)
No it isn't, because civil forfeiture operates when no charges are filed. If you are arrested, Constitutional rights kick in. Property can be frozen until trial, but any disposition of that property must be by legal judgment. Civil forfeiture allows officials to steal property without due process, so long as no charges are filed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even really that legal. Initially, there was no legislative action involved at all, instead, they dug up a principle of English common law that hadn''t been used in centuries where they 'sue' the property itself. It had been long forgotten primarily because anyone old enough to go to school could see that the very concept is at best silly.
But since they started with actual drug dealers, nobody saw fit to demand due process of law. Not, it's pretty much anybody they can get their hands on.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of their funding comes from the assets they steal. They are becoming economically self sufficient and more dangerous. Soon there will be only one way to deal with them, and you're not going to like it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I automatically vote No on bond overrides for prison facilities. The more cells we give the legal system, the more crimes it will invent, out of thin air if necessary, to fill them. Limit the number of cells, and they will have to prioritize: no more locking people up fdor life for possessing seven pounds of wacky weed.
better idea (Score:2)
"Repealing laws that make this possible" is a bit vague. What we need is to let people take governments to court, both on civil and on criminal charges.
Also allow class action lawsuits for police stops. That way, juries can sort out which police stops are reasonable and which are unreasonable. That's much better than the political football these issues have become through civil rights enforcement.
Holy cow ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, so these guys are doing traffic stops and seizures (where they benefit from it) and they're not actually law enforcement?
So basically they're a shakedown racket? The more they seize the more profit they make? That's RICO level stuff there.
This kind of stuff is appalling, and it just means that a lot of stuff is being put into the private sector so they can ignore all of those pesky laws.
Unbelievable.
Re:Holy cow ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you and everybody else!
Re: (Score:3)
We're all too occupied playing the lone hero in video games...
Re: (Score:2)
Screw the fictional superheroes. We need Snowdonman!
Re: (Score:2)
Yup - pure banditry.
Since we're on the freeway to neofeudalism anyways, maybe we ought to look into how bandits were dealt with back in the bad old days....
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and you can thank Nancy Reagan and the war on drugs for this shit ( http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nmlr... [unm.edu])
Zero tolerance, indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, no. Things started getting a lot nastier with Nixon's Controlled Substances Act. They decided it was best to have the Mob control the substances.
Re:Holy cow ... (Score:5, Informative)
Right, I've run into this before. Always refuse a search. When you do that, if they are a police officer or not will become apparently rather quickly. Non-police will stall and try to get you to hang around so they can bully you into it. Ask if you're under arrest or otherwise being detained against your will, if not, leave. Have no further discussion with that person. Keep in mind that even the police departments get to keep seized cash. It may not go directly into their pocket but it goes to buying them new squad cars, weapons, vests and even towards their bonuses and promotions. So they have a very strong incentive to "Find" something on you. In a large metropolitian department it may not seem so direct to the officers. But you get into your average town that only has half a doze cops and finding a couple of hundred K in a trunk becomes a big win for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, never consent to a search again. 45min is nothing... 10yrs because your cousin dropped a bottle of Oxy under your seat last time he borrowed your car to go get beer sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
You ask if you're free to go. If the answer is "yes", you leave. If the answer is "no", ask if you are under arrest. If the answer is "yes", exercise your right to be silent, do not resist any searches but do not (verbally) consent to them. Do not talk to the cops without your lawyer present in this case. If the answer is "no", start over by asking if you're free to go. When asking these questions, repeat the curr
Re: (Score:1)
Wait... of course in fine slashdot tradition I did not RTFA, but you're saying non-law-enforcement people are pulling people over and confiscating their assets?
Doesn't that make it OK to, you know, shoot them in self defense? If someone stops you and demands your money, that's known as robbery, and it establishes a reasonable cause to suspet a threat to your safety.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Nearly every state has made it a crime to defend yourself against a police officer, even if that officer is threatening your life while violating your constitutionally guaranteed rights.
At nearly every turn, you are just plain fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
But these aren't police officers. They're only pretending to be police officers. They're doing so with the approval of the county, but they're not deputized or anything (per TFA).
The state's American Civil Liberties Union chapter called for an investigation of the district attorney and criminal charges against Desert Snow employees for impersonating law enforcement officers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's up to the jury, but they can't make the case with laws that prevent "defend[ing] yourself against a police officer".
Re:Privatized=Compromised (Score:5, Insightful)
Privatization is a means by which corrupt bureaucrats hide the largess of government from an unsuspecting populace. Then they run on a record of "shrinking" the government.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Privatization is a means by which corrupt bureaucrats hide the largess of government from an unsuspecting populace. Then they run on a record of "shrinking" the government.
It is more than that. It is wealth transfer from government employees to corporate owners. They sell it is a cost reduction that comes from using private employees who get paid less and don't get very good benefits because of competition between bidders. But after a year or two the institutional knowledge makes it extremely difficult to change to a new service provider so th company gets a lock on the contract, raises prices to match or even exceed the original costs but the employees remain underpaid an
Re: (Score:3)
What else would we expect when we privatize police activities that should clearly be done by accountable public entites?
What else would we expect when we privatize the entire government and effectively do away with accountable public entites? That's only a slight exaggeration of the current situation - soon it won't be an exaggeration at all.
It's also not entirely an issue of privatization. Even when the DEA didn't have the private-sector taint outlined in the article, they were over-zealous over-enforcers with their own political power and their own obvious vested interest in keeping drugs illegal and penalties harsh.
That s
Prey (Score:3)
we've always been at war on %abstract_concept% (Score:2, Informative)
"If you can't prove the crime, don't confiscate a dime."
-- some blatant pinko commie, probably Thomas Jefferson
Re: (Score:2)
Funny or Interesting? O_O
Very unfortunate name...
Letters of marque and reprisal? (Score:2)
It's a fine international tradition, but one that I thought had fallen out of favor some centuries ago.
Re: (Score:2)
It' worse. A letter of marque authorized seizure of ENEMY ships. That means that this civil forfeiture is essentially a declaration of war against U.S. citizens.
Fuck the government (Score:1)
"The New Yorker" article on civil forfeiture (Score:3)
Property-seizures MUST STOP (Score:5, Informative)
Law enforcement doing their job — and bragging about it — is fine. All professions do that, it is normal.
I don't even mind them seizing the (illegal) drugs, but possession of cash is not against the law. Unfortunately, a loophole in the American legal thinking (as well as the British, which we inherited) does not provide much protection to a person's property [fbi.gov]. Nowhere near as much as to the person himself.
The Executive can seize cash [washingtonpost.com], vehicles [myrecordjournal.com], and even real estate [fbi.gov] without Judiciary oversight or approval — and that ought to stop. Their justification — that what they are seizing things was used for "criminal activity" — comes into play, before anyone is convicted in any criminality.
That must stop. A judge may impose limitations on using of the suspect property (and fund-transfer) — the same way movement limitations are imposed on a person, while investigation is ongoing or a trial is pending. But no seizures ought to be permitted until a "Guilty" verdict is pronounced and the sentencing enumerates, what's to be seized as a punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops doing their job.
Fine.
Cops using an intelligence network to make job easier.
Also fine.
Cops using a privately run intelligence network with no oversight or rules but lots of personally identifiable information to track people whom the state isn't even legally interested in?
Not cool, but correctable. Oversight is important, as is proper rules and regs for things stored in a database and its usage, even for people the state is interested in. Adding people the state isnt legally interested in...is upsetting
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You find the fact, that it is a private business to be the most offensive? A private business can neither arrest nor prosecute — much less
Re: (Score:3)
I do believe I said civil forfeiture needs to go away. So yes, further insult on top of that is of course even more infuriating.
What do you mean make no seizures and arrests? It's not only in the source article, but in the local news as well (I happen to live there). They aren't just training cops. They are literally acting as cops on their own. They run their own patrols. They make their own stops and detentions on the highway. You're goddamned right thats the most shocking bit. They're now facing charges
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Now, where is the movement to stop the property seizures? Is anyone even collecting signatures?
Let's not get distracted, huh?
You are perfectly right that it is in the interests of such companies to find
Re: (Score:2)
And when Coke has strong armed a deal with all local venues to keep them from selling anything but Coke?
At one time, the Libertarians understood that corporations couldn't be permitted to exist (and also understood that incorporation was a legal grant from the government). What happened?
Pray tell, if the corporation in question is a prison and you have been locked up, where is your option to choose the prison that fluffs your pillow and leaves a nice mint before bedtime after a hard day of sipping champagne
Re: (Score:3)
(my kingdom for an edit button)
Thats why you people need to stop thinking of government as some mysterious other disconnected from you, and get involved in it. By the people, of the people, for the people, all the jazz. its an ideal thats hard to attain and maintain, and i hold no illusions that our government is meeting said ideal, but that doesnt mean the solution is to scrap it. Vote. Get involved. Help stop corporations* and rich folks from owning too much much of it, from enjoying disproportionate repr
Re: (Score:1)
Law enforcement doing their job — and bragging about it — is fine. All professions do that, it is normal.
I don't even mind them seizing the (illegal) drugs, but possession of cash is not against the law. Unfortunately, a loophole in the American legal thinking (as well as the British, which we inherited) does not provide much protection to a person's property [fbi.gov]. Nowhere near as much as to the person himself.
The Executive can seize cash [washingtonpost.com], vehicles [myrecordjournal.com], and even real estate [fbi.gov] without Judiciary oversight or approval — and that ought to stop. Their justification — that what they are seizing things was used for "criminal activity" — comes into play, before anyone is convicted in any criminality.
That must stop. A judge may impose limitations on using of the suspect property (and fund-transfer) — the same way movement limitations are imposed on a person, while investigation is ongoing or a trial is pending. But no seizures ought to be permitted until a "Guilty" verdict is pronounced and the sentencing enumerates, what's to be seized as a punishment.
It's time to start carrying a form of money that cannot be seized by authorities. (That is, as long as you can keep your private key a secret.) Oh dear... what are the authoritarians going to do when Bitcoin adoption goes maintream?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There wasn't much implied by my comment. About all I can say is that the authorities are certainly stupid enough to try something like outlawing Bitcoin, but more likely they will create layer upon layer of new regulations that no one understands. The end result will be further ambiguity, which is perfect for the .gov because the objective these days seems to be to have so many laws with so many interpretations that you can basically bust anyone for anything if don't happen to like them.
I personally thin
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet if the law required any property seized to be destroyed, this would be less common. Sure, the cops can seize the kingpin's million in cash, but they have to burn it on site. It wouldn't actually stop it since some cops are mean spirited and actually enjoy screwing people over just for the hell of it.
Wagner (Score:2)
Bad for the rich - this will end soon (Score:2)
Rich people often personally move large quantities of cash around - for reasons that are often illegal and almost always unethical, but that's not the point here. The point is that the first time a rich dude has his DIY cash shipment intercepted, this idiocy will end quickly. But what are the odds of an expensive and classy car with a classy, usually white person behind the wheel getting pulled over?
Hmm, if drug dealers moved their cash in Maybachs they'd go untouched!
It's highway robbery! (Score:1)
Didn't people used to be hanged for this kind of thing?
Racial Profiling Much? (Score:3)
If you look at the information about the seizures it would be immediately obvious that the targets don't look like your stereotypical redneck sheriff. Surprise, surprise.
Want to smuggle anything? Look like a good old boy and have a NRA sticker on your car. For bonus points add some Tea Party crap. The cops will give you a thumbs up and send you on your way.
Re: (Score:3)
Read the previous day's Washington Post article (Score:1)