Police Seizing Gift Cards

[Narwal]

Don't get me wrong. It was super shady what they did. I don't disagree there. But they should never have been asked in the first place. As soon as the officers confirmed it wasn't drugs, they should go on their merry way. The driver of the car wasn't doing anything illegal, so the car was not suspect.

The problem I think is that... This could have happened to totally legitimate situations, and the result would have been the same. Confiscated goods.

Saying they lied about it isn't valid, because they shouldn't have gone so far to determine that they lied.

Hiding something gives probable cause. In court it's used to show acknowledgment of guilt. Drugs are not the only thing they're looking for, and many "objects/items" have both good and bad uses. Consider the individual components in bombs such as: ball bearings, fertilizers, gun powder.. these are all legal things that may have been in the bag, but together or separately in large quantities may draw attention from authorities in a search and require seizure while under investigation.

[Thedweller]

Hiding something gives probable cause. In court it's used to show acknowledgment of guilt. Drugs are not the only thing they're looking for, and many "objects/items" have both good and bad uses. Consider the individual components in bombs such as: ball bearings, fertilizers, gun powder.. these are all legal things that may have been in the bag, but together or separately in large quantities may draw attention from authorities in a search and require seizure while under investigation.

Hiding something should NOT give probably cause. Hiding something could be a clue that something is private. What if it's a bag full of dildos that a person doesn't want the cops to see? People have a right to privacy. Probable cause is not "I have a suspicion, but nothing to really base it on so I'm going to go fishing and hope I find something."

Probably cause is smelling pot. You now have probable cause to search for pot. Probable cause is a vehicle matching your description fled an accident. You now have probably cause to determine if this IS that vehicle. Probable cause is a series of items were reported stolen, and you can see one of them. You now have probable cause to search to see if the rest of them are there too. They need something concrete. It can't just be "what are you trying to hide?"

If you allow things like probable cause to be so widely defined that almost anything is probable cause, then you may as well just give up your rights. The laws were originally written to place the burden of suspicion on the cops, KNOWING that it would sometimes mean guilty people get away, so that innocent people could instead have their privacy protected. If we weren't provided that protection, then we may as well just let cops go on fishing trips whenever they feel like it, and we just give up our privacy because 'if we don't have something to hide we have nothing to fear" type bullshit argument.

Of course, that said, a cop can *ask* to see something, and if the person complies, then all bets are off. I feel that like the Miranda Rights, people should have to be informed that a request by an officer is not always a legal requirement to comply. If you aren't informed of your right to refuse, it can be very confusing, as generally you *should* comply with an officer's requests, as they are often not really optional.

[Masark]

-Two men get pulled over (for reasons not detailed)
-After running ID's, passenger has an active warrant, and is detained.

that right there, esp the second makes it all perfectly legal as it should.

So a guy in the vehicle has a warrant, therefore robbing anyone else in the vehicle is perfectly legal.

[Deleted]

Hey, whats in the bag?
-140 Gift cards
So not drugs?
-Definitly not, you can trust me.
Okidoki then



Yep, no probable cause to check it at all.

Innocent until proven guilty, ever heard of that? It's not their job to prove their innocence so why should it matter? As long as there is no evidence that those cards were acquired illegally.

[cuafpr]

So a guy in the vehicle has a warrant, therefore robbing anyone else in the vehicle is perfectly legal.

well no, but no one was robbed so there is that.

[Sunseeker]

"Probable Cause" is.... a conveniently loose thing, though. Having a lot of money is not 'probable cause', as there's nothing illegal with that. It falls into that whole 'civil forfeiture' area.

Probable cause doesn't have to be founded on illegal acts. It's just founded on suspicious activity. A suitcase with 140 gift cards is suspicious. Just like a suitcase full of cash is suspicious. Or the smell of marijuana is suspicious.

I'll agree that civil forfeiture is something that seriously needs to be reworked, but probable cause relies on nothing more than a cop's gut feeling.

[zenkai]

"Probable Cause" is.... a conveniently loose thing, though. Having a lot of money is not 'probable cause', as there's nothing illegal with that. It falls into that whole 'civil forfeiture' area.

Id say stuffing something under the seat is probable cause. I do agree it can and has been abused.

[Annoying]

-Two men get pulled over (for reasons not detailed)
-After running ID's, passenger has an active warrant, and is detained.

that right there, esp the second makes it all perfectly legal as it should.

I don't know how that gives any probable cause. Being arrested for something unrelated to the current stop doesn't give any indication of what's happening at the current stop.

If you had a warrant for something you did at, say a bar, would them arresting you at your own home allow them to search your house? No. The bag of gift cards under the seat has nothing to do with the warrant he had out for his arrest, and thus shouldn't have any probable cause to need to be searched.

[starlord]

if something is laying where it can be easily discovered (as in they didnt have to take apart the car to get to it), it is legal for police to take or search through it if they find something suspicious.

i forget the exact legal terms for it.

edit: so its because its considered "reasonable" since it wasnt locked in the trunk or glovebox etc.

[Annoying]

if something is laying where it can be easily discovered (as in they didnt have to take apart the car to get to it), it is legal for police to take or search through it if they find something suspicious.

i forget the exact legal terms for it.

edit: so its because its considered "reasonable" since it wasnt locked in the trunk or glovebox etc.

Well, it's not probable cause. The bag was opaque and it's reasonable to store bags of whatever you want under a seat. However, after looking at it closely, it's irrelevant whether they had probable cause or not. They asked what was in the bag and the person answered. Had he said "none of your business" and they still searched the "card strips" (which is what was being searched), this might be a different case.

[cuafpr]

I don't know how that gives any probable cause. Being arrested for something unrelated to the current stop doesn't give any indication of what's happening at the current stop.

If you had a warrant for something you did at, say a bar, would them arresting you at your own home allow them to search your house? No. The bag of gift cards under the seat has nothing to do with the warrant he had out for his arrest, and thus shouldn't have any probable cause to need to be searched.

search no.. but they didn't search here either, they saw the bag asked what was in it and the information was volunteered. then asked more details and the story waived from we bought them to we got them from someone. That plus knowledge of recent activity with re-coded cards gave the reason to suspect illegal activity. Thus a card was scanned, first scanned failed so secret service was called and seem they did a scan and they were altered.

[unbound]

"Probable Cause" is.... a conveniently loose thing, though. Having a lot of money is not 'probable cause', as there's nothing illegal with that. It falls into that whole 'civil forfeiture' area.

While I don't disagree that probable cause is conveniently loose, they certainly met the definition with "-After running ID's, passenger has an active warrant, and is detained."...having lots of money was not the probably cause they used.

[Noradin]

So what do we learn from this?
Do not hand the police anything if they ask for it, because they will interpret it as permission to seize it.

[Kellhound]

Cops pull someone over they shove stuff under the seat trying to hide it. That is the exact reason probably cause exists. and having large sums of money on you 'even gift cards' is something they can detain/take over. Dont know the exact law off hand that allows it but it is. its used alot to stop drug dealers and the likes.

Its used a lot to take money from people (even innocent people) without needing to find them guilty of anything for the purpose of funding the police department that seized it. Its a massive conflict of interest and intentionally hard to fight (so much so if it was any harder in many cases it would be a clear violation of Due Process). It is without a doubt a power that should be removed from all law enforcement agencies.