Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The key part for me is right here -

"A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why."

Yeah, no. We've already crossed into unacceptable police behavior right there. There's no reason to suspect me of a crime, so you don't get to question me. At all. Forget whether or not it's smart for me to answer it, it's wrong for the cop to be asking it. We, as a society, need to walk this all back starting right here at this point in the process.

The forfeiture itself is so clearly unconstitutional that I can't imagine how even a loose constructionist can twist it to make it ok. Much less someone like Thomas or Scalia. Ugh.



Not only that, but violating someone's 4th amendment rights is a crime, and in fact a felony under USC 18-242. That DEA agent (and every TSA agent, FWIW) belongs in jail for a long time.

What is it when the laws only apply to you but not the government? In this case the law is specific to people doing the violation "under color of law".


This is why the individuals involved in these acts need to have their names and faces splashed in the news, and their homes picketed by protesters, for starters.

Individual discretion, but with collective protection and anonymity. That's not going to work.


Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree with you that the officials crossed the limits in basically everything in case what's reported is completely factual.

And honestly, having cash in an envelope should be something completely normal no matter where you are. In Japan having tons of cash on you is not frown upon by anyone, because cash is used for everything and accepted everywhere even where cards aren't (and people are not afraid of being robbed).


The can try to question you all they want, but you don't have to answer. It isn't wrong for the cop to ask and it isn't wrong for you to not answer.


I think it's wrong for the cop to ask. He's not just making conversation in his spare time; he's ostensibly executing the laws of the land. What purpose does it serve to have this random conversation that is not part of any lawful investigation?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: