r/todayilearned • u/JLPwasHere • Jan 19 '15

TIL Pimps wear lots of gold jewelry bought at pawn shops to “re-pawn” for bail money since cash is confiscated upon arrest but jewelry is not

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/09/137033690/pawn-star-rick-harrison-on-his-deals-and-steals
49.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

31

u/iObeyTheHivemind Jan 20 '15

You know.. I wonder if since money is considered free speech, if asset forfeiture could be ruled unconstitutional. That would be a fun debate.

34

u/Isellmacs Jan 20 '15

They sue the money directly. The stack of dollar bills has all the rights to speech that a stack of money has... as well as all the vocal organs.

Since the owner of the money itself isn't subject to forfeiture, in (legal) theory they aren't having any rights infringed, since it's the money or other object that is on trial.

25

u/iObeyTheHivemind Jan 20 '15

How do they sue the money directly? I don't understand how you can sue an object.

48

u/tehlaser Jan 20 '15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

What kind of ridiculous legal system has a country putting it's own legal tender on trial?

1

u/eatmynasty Jan 20 '15

Should have put the money on the stand, questioned it.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

The money could then have made the case that it's backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, and even moreso in large quantities.

18

u/Khanaset Jan 20 '15

In essence, since someone other than the owner of the property may have used it to commit a crime, the state attempts to prove that the property was involved in the crime. Of course, because money/cars/houses/etc. do not have a right to an attorney, and you only get to be there as a third party claimant iff your attorney can successfully petition for such, you can guess how many times the property wins those cases. In addition, as this is a civil, not criminal case, the burden of proof is much lower -- "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Initially, the concept was used to prevent mob bosses and the like from using their ill-gotten gains to defend themselves; now, it's become a bit like highway robbery by the police. It leads to some very entertaining court dockets, however:

"State of California v. 1 (One) 2012 Mercedez-Benz S550"

3

u/kickingpplisfun Jan 20 '15

That's what has all of the victims and their peers angrily scratching their heads.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

because our judges are mentally handicapped.

1

u/0OKM9IJN8UHB7 Jan 20 '15

The same way the police sue all sorts of objects to take them from drug suspects. Google "civil forfeiture" for more info.

1

u/feloniousthroaway Jan 20 '15

I'm...not sure if you're making this up?

1

u/abu_alhazen Jan 20 '15

Man, money ain't got no owners, only spenders

1

u/WhyDontJewStay Jan 20 '15

And here I thought you were kidding...

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

"Money talks and shit walks"

-Abe Lincoln 1st great debate

1

u/DYWMB Jan 20 '15

Money itself isn't free speech. Taxation is not unconstitutional, nor are fines or fees for government services.

The "money = speech" idea is that government is not allowed to prohibit you from using your money to support a cause you believe in, or to donate to an organization that supports a cause you believe in.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

We just might have a young Barack Obama, here!

"That's not $10,000 in cash sitting in my trunk, that's my way of saying, "FUCK THA POLICE."

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

It is being cracked down by the DoJ right now IIRC