Another civil forfeiture thread

Archived From: Finance
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
For those interested:  Article in Washington Post, about farmer that agreed to a 10% settlement with IRS successfully petitioning to get his money back.  Of course, it took four years and it probably didn't hurt that he testified at Congressional hearing last year.

http://wapo.st/29zsP0t

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
It appears he may have ignored the situation, but the plaintiff should NEVER have been allowed to essentially file a cla... (more)

stanolshefski (Jul. 07, 2016 @ 6:26p) |

TravelerMSY (Sep. 30, 2016 @ 8:24p) |

Progress certainly, but the $40k threshold would seem to still allow CA cops to profit from higher value items.

tuphat (Oct. 01, 2016 @ 3:48p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

Funny how the govt says: "“I thought that we treated him extremely fairly,” Cassella said. “We gave him an enormous break.”" - we did not prove he did anything wrong but...

dumroo said:   Funny how the govt says: "“I thought that we treated him extremely fairly,” Cassella said. “We gave him an enormous break.”" - we did not prove he did anything wrong but...
  Well, he did intentionally structure his deposits to avoid reporting.

A lot of unanswered questions from this report. Like who turned him in. I mean if he was told by the teller to make deposits less than $10,000 to skip reporting because they (the bank) didn't want to fill out reports, then who turned him in? Did he claim all $295,000 on his income tax returns and pay his fair share of taxes on it? Did he really break the law here. If he claimed it for tax purposes, then I am inclined to say no.

Yes, the law is in place to catch people (like Drug dealers) who make large deposits and don't report it on their income tax returns, but what about the people that do claim it. Once they check the returns, they should clear it up. That is what is not happening.

bookreader54321 said:   A lot of unanswered questions from this report. Like who turned him in. I mean if he was told by the teller to make deposits less than $10,000 to skip reporting because they (the bank) didn't want to fill out reports, then who turned him in?
Banks have compliance people who might review such transactions and take action. It's a lot deeper than just the front line tellers.

And paying tax on the cash is irrelevant to structuring. Would you make the argument your speeding ticket should be dismissed since you didn't t-bone a minivan full of kids? Making a deposit is not a taxable event, any more so than a withdrawal can be deducted. The purpose of the reporting is to establish a paper trail for the cash entering and exiting the banking system, it has nothing to do with taxes (it potentially can, but there's a bigger picture).
 

search away, says supreme court


In this recent case, the supreme court ruled that if you are stopped for no reason and the officer then finds that you have an outstanding warrant, he may search your vehicle and your person without your consent and then act according to what is found, including seizing stuff per CAF.  Unpaid parking ticket? No fourth amendment for you.

soundtechie said:   search away, says supreme court 


In this recent case, the supreme court ruled that if you are stopped for no reason and the officer then finds that you have an outstanding warrant, he may search your vehicle and your person without your consent and then act according to what is found, including seizing stuff per CAF.  Unpaid parking ticket? No fourth amendment for you.

  Nothing wrong with that - the fact they accidentally found you doesn't change the fact there's a warrant for your arrest.  They don't need your consent to arrest you, which comes with being searched anyways.

Glitch99 said:   
soundtechie said:   search away, says supreme court 


In this recent case, the supreme court ruled that if you are stopped for no reason and the officer then finds that you have an outstanding warrant, he may search your vehicle and your person without your consent and then act according to what is found, including seizing stuff per CAF.  Unpaid parking ticket? No fourth amendment for you.

  Nothing wrong with that - the fact they accidentally found you doesn't change the fact there's a warrant for your arrest.  They don't need your consent to arrest you, which comes with being searched anyways.

  

In the test case, the guy had a warrant for a "minor traffic offense" - he wouldn't have gone to jail in the first place., In states where a large portion of the population has unpaid court fees, this really does create a situation where the rich have rights and the poor do not.  And besides, this is a change from earlier court doctrine: before the rule was, if you stopped someone for no reason and then found a warrant, you still needed their consent for a search. Feel free to search, but don't use the results of that search to charge further crimes. If want to go fishing, do it in a lake.

BostonOne said:   
dumroo said:   Funny how the govt says: "“I thought that we treated him extremely fairly,” Cassella said. “We gave him an enormous break.”" - we did not prove he did anything wrong but...
  Well, he did intentionally structure his deposits to avoid reporting.

  
I agree with everything Glitch99 said in his first post. From what I've read in this particular case, it seems the teller told him that if he deposited below the report requirement, then there wouldn't be a report filed, thus, saving the farmer and the bank some time. And who doesn't like to save time? My guess is that the farmer didn't dig deeper to find that what he was doing was called "strctring", and that it was against the law.

Now, the justice department is correct in following the letter of the law, but they didn't follow the spirit of the law. This law was put in place to catch criminals, not to shake "law abiding citizens". And I put it in " because even people who think are law abiding citizens break the law on occasions without their knowledge. The law is just too complex, and we are not lawyers. This farmer probably didn't know about this. Personally, I learned about this only after my 30s.

It seems to me that the law needs to be updated to include that if the citizen can prove that the money deposited is legitimate, they should get their money back. Simple as that. And also, the $10k limit needs to be raised and adjusted for inflation. $10k is not money anymore. That is if what the government really wants is to catch criminal. However, if what they want is money, they will leave this stupid law in place.

noelandres said:   

It seems to me that the law needs to be updated to include that if the citizen can prove that the money deposited is legitimate, they should get their money back. Simple as that.

It should be even simpler than that - if there's no charges filed, there's no seizure. Require LE to actually make their case within X months, to continue holding the cash (or whatever was seized). You need to be accused of something before you can attempt to prove your innocence.

The issue isnt the seizures, it's that the seizures occur independent of any prosecution.
  

soundtechie said:   
In states where a large portion of the population has unpaid court fees, this really does create a situation where the rich have rights and the poor do not. 

Dont you mean this creates a situation where the poor can commit crimes with less consequence, while the rich are expected to pay up? The enforcement of a warrant should have nothing to do with one's economic means.
  

Glitch99 said:   
soundtechie said:   
In states where a large portion of the population has unpaid court fees, this really does create a situation where the rich have rights and the poor do not. 

Dont you mean this creates a situation where the poor can commit crimes with less consequence, while the rich are expected to pay up? The enforcement of a warrant should have nothing to do with one's economic means.
  

No, he's saying when the structure of law enforcement is arrayed against certain populations, it creates a racist and classist system.

75% of the residents of Ferguson have active warrants:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-robinson/the-shocking-findi...

 

BostonOne said:   
Glitch99 said:   
soundtechie said:   
In states where a large portion of the population has unpaid court fees, this really does create a situation where the rich have rights and the poor do not. 

Dont you mean this creates a situation where the poor can commit crimes with less consequence, while the rich are expected to pay up? The enforcement of a warrant should have nothing to do with one's economic means.
  

No, he's saying when the structure of law enforcement is arrayed against certain populations, it creates a racist and classist system.

75% of the residents of Ferguson have active warrants:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-robinson/the-shocking-findi... 

 

  So those warrants should be enforced differently because of the subject's race or financial means?

I mean, I speed a lot, so obviously the issue is the speed limit is too low and should be raised so I no longer break the law...

Glitch99 said:     So those warrants should be enforced differently because of the subject's race or financial means?

I mean, I speed a lot, so obviously the issue is the speed limit is too low and should be raised so I no longer break the law...

  
There's a lot more validity to that argument than the prior one.  When speed limits aren't set at the 85th percentile level and enforcement rates are insufficient to drive compliance, it is not safe to obey the law.  There's a section of highway here that's normally a 60 limit but the interchange is under construction and the limit is 45.  Highway Patrol is working the rest of the highway but not the section that's under construction.  Average speed through the construction zone?  About 65.  I actively try to get down to 45, but it's just not possible without creating a traffic hazard.

Conversely, statistics don't necessarily imply bias without understanding the underlying dynamics.

Glitch99 said:   
soundtechie said:   search away, says supreme court 


In this recent case, the supreme court ruled that if you are stopped for no reason and the officer then finds that you have an outstanding warrant, he may search your vehicle and your person without your consent and then act according to what is found, including seizing stuff per CAF.  Unpaid parking ticket? No fourth amendment for you.

  Nothing wrong with that - the fact they accidentally found you doesn't change the fact there's a warrant for your arrest.  They don't need your consent to arrest you, which comes with being searched anyways.

  Keeping in mind that Mr. Strieff was on foot and not driving, here's where it came apart for him:  "As part of the stop, Officer Fackrell requested Strieff ’s identification, and Strieff produced his Utah identification
card." Utah has a stop-and-identify statute (below); I don't know what penalty is for noncompliance, but Mr. Strieff at a minimum probably should have tried to withhold his identity. Anyway, sad day when what starts out as an unconstitutional stop suddenly becomes constitutional.

77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

Dennis Hastert just called and wants his hush money back.

Keeping in mind that Mr. Strieff was on foot and not driving, here's where it came apart for him: "As part of the stop, Officer Fackrell requested Strieff ’s identification, and Strieff produced his Utah identification
card." Utah has a stop-and-identify statute (below); I don't know what penalty is for noncompliance, but Mr. Strieff at a minimum probably should have tried to withhold his identity. Anyway, sad day when what starts out as an unconstitutional stop suddenly becomes constitutional.


Strieff was an idiot for producing his ID. Stop and ID laws only require you to state your name. You are not required to carry around a government issued piece of plastic or even have one issued. Second, the stop must be premised on the commission of a crime. This is why you should never talk to a cop. Even in a stop and ID state, you only have to state your name or name and address in this case. I'm not sure the address component is even legal.



77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

I would ask if I was suspected of a crime or being detained and what crime. 

soundtechie said:   

 In the test case, the guy had a warrant for a "minor traffic offense" - he wouldn't have gone to jail in the first place., In states where a large portion of the population has unpaid court fees, this really does create a situation where the rich have rights and the poor do not.  And besides, this is a change from earlier court doctrine: before the rule was, if you stopped someone for no reason and then found a warrant, you still needed their consent for a search. Feel free to search, but don't use the results of that search to charge further crimes. If want to go fishing, do it in a lake.


  Why was it described as a "minor traffic offense"?  What was so difficult about stating the specific crime?

Anyway, he mostly likely had a warrant because he had failed to take care of the ticket, not because of the ticket itself.  He could've contacted the court and requested either a hardship exemption or a payment plan.   You're framing this as a rich-poor thing, when it's actually about poors letting a minor issue morph into a big one.

Oh and if cops stop you for no reason and find a warrant, they'll generally make up a reason for the initial stop.  Then they've got a green light for a search.

vuheci said:   
soundtechie said:   

 In the test case, the guy had a warrant for a "minor traffic offense" - he wouldn't have gone to jail in the first place., In states where a large portion of the population has unpaid court fees, this really does create a situation where the rich have rights and the poor do not.  And besides, this is a change from earlier court doctrine: before the rule was, if you stopped someone for no reason and then found a warrant, you still needed their consent for a search. Feel free to search, but don't use the results of that search to charge further crimes. If want to go fishing, do it in a lake.


  Why was it described as a "minor traffic offense"?  What was so difficult about stating the specific crime?

Anyway, he mostly likely had a warrant because he had failed to take care of the ticket, not because of the ticket itself.  He could've contacted the court and requested either a hardship exemption or a payment plan.   You're framing this as a rich-poor thing, when it's actually about poors letting a minor issue morph into a big one.

Oh and if cops stop you for no reason and find a warrant, they'll generally make up a reason for the initial stop.  Then they've got a green light for a search.

  
"Oh and if cops stop you for no reason and find a warrant, they'll generally make up a reason for the initial stop.  Then they've got a green light for a search." Exactly. They usually say "I smell some <pick illegal substance flavor of the day> on the car". They have used the "I smell alcohol in the car" line with me, and I don't drink! Pathetic.

Yup - like once I was stopped for "crossing the white line on the highway" - I am a fairly dark asian. After a bunch of questions, I was given a "warning" and my race was marked "white". Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), I did not notice this until later.

IMBoring25 said:   
 
  
  There's a section of highway here that's normally a 60 limit but the interchange is under construction and the limit is 45.  Highway Patrol is working the rest of the highway but not the section that's under construction.  Average speed through the construction zone?  About 65.  I actively try to get down to 45, but it's just not possible without creating a traffic hazard.


 

 if cops aren't working that area, why would you try to do 45?  that's the time to do 65+

These people did not have their money "confiscated" they were bullied into giving it to them because they were offered a break if they gave up the right to fight in court. This is a common tactic in all branches of law enforcement. Talk to a lawyer first. Many times the person offering the deal does not even have authority to do so. It can result in you admitting to a crime and being prosecuted later.

Glitch99 said:   I mean, I speed a lot, so obviously the issue is the speed limit is too low and should be raised so I no longer break the law...
  90% of drivers speed, which DOES imply that either limits are too low, or road design does too little to discourage speeding.  Labeling normal behavior as deviant is never a good basis for a justice system.

Glitch99 said:   
noelandres said:   

It seems to me that the law needs to be updated to include that if the citizen can prove that the money deposited is legitimate, they should get their money back. Simple as that.

It should be even simpler than that - if there's no charges filed, there's no seizure. Require LE to actually make their case within X months, to continue holding the cash (or whatever was seized). You need to be accused of something before you can attempt to prove your innocence.

The issue isnt the seizures, it's that the seizures occur independent of any prosecution.
  

  
It's almost that simple.  You should need codified time limits and ultimately a conviction to keep the seized assets.  Can't let them take ten years to get a conviction.

I agree with your stance though, the seizure should be concurrent to charges being filed.

In an ideal world, would also like to see metrics on police departments / officers and what percent of assets they seized gets returned.

gatzdon said:   
It's almost that simple.  You should need codified time limits and ultimately a conviction to keep the seized assets.  Can't let them take ten years to get a conviction.
I agree with your stance though, the seizure should be concurrent to charges being filed.
In an ideal world, would also like to see metrics on police departments / officers and what percent of assets they seized gets returned.


Welcome to the war on drugs. It's kinda like the war on terrorism, only that we agreed that some of us will give up property instead of our rights to privacy as collateral damage.
Legitimately, you can't have it both ways. How many of us would scream "stupidity" when a car coming up I-35 driven by a Mexican national in Texas is stopped, searched (legitimately, however that happens) and is found to contain $250k cash hidden in the trunk? Do we let that go because we can't immediately tie it to illegal activity?

As soon as we allow that cashed to be seized then any time you and me are carrying around an undocumented bundle, that bundle is perhaps at risk due to the lack of oversight and due process around these issues.


I don't like it either.. But getting the government to do anything right and getting our a small minority of our law enforcement community to not abuse authority is no small task.

IMHO - there should be massive civil liability in cases where property is improperly seized and not returned.  Not liability just to the jurisdiction that took it, but liability all the way down to the officer that confiscated the property.   The way it is right now, best case you get your property returned minus a bunch of legal fees.


  

dcg9381 said:   
gatzdon said:   
It's almost that simple.  You should need codified time limits and ultimately a conviction to keep the seized assets.  Can't let them take ten years to get a conviction.
I agree with your stance though, the seizure should be concurrent to charges being filed.
In an ideal world, would also like to see metrics on police departments / officers and what percent of assets they seized gets returned.


Welcome to the war on drugs. It's kinda like the war on terrorism, only that we agreed that some of us will give up property instead of our rights to privacy as collateral damage.
Legitimately, you can't have it both ways. How many of us would scream "stupidity" when a car coming up I-35 driven by a Mexican national in Texas is stopped, searched (legitimately, however that happens) and is found to contain $250k cash hidden in the trunk? Do we let that go because we can't immediately tie it to illegal activity?

As soon as we allow that cashed to be seized then any time you and me are carrying around an undocumented bundle, that bundle is perhaps at risk due to the lack of oversight and due process around these issues.


I don't like it either.. But getting the government to do anything right and getting our a small minority of our law enforcement community to not abuse authority is no small task.

IMHO - there should be massive civil liability in cases where property is improperly seized and not returned.  Not liability just to the jurisdiction that took it, but liability all the way down to the officer that confiscated the property.   The way it is right now, best case you get your property returned minus a bunch of legal fees.


  

  
I hate hypothetical situations.  They really skew the argument without a legitimate basis.  In my opinion (yes I'm just one person), if the individual is here legally, then yes they should not be deprived of their property without a charge.  If it's illegal to carry large amounts of cash, then give me rules to abide by.

But the fact is, I'm not talking about $250,000 seizures, I'm talking about any and all seizures, especially the small ones.
Washington Post said: Half of the more than $5.5 million in cash seizures were for $141 or less, with more than a thousand for less than $20.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dc-police-plan-for-future-seizure-proceeds-years-in-advance-in-city-budget-documents/2014/11/15/7025edd2-6b76-11e4-b053-65cea7903f2e_story.html?tid=pm_investigations_pop 

It's a slippery slope.  Without constraints, there are no limits.
 

This is not a free country. The aforementioned statement used to be debatable, but it no longer is.

dcg9381 said:   
gatzdon said:   
It's almost that simple.  You should need codified time limits and ultimately a conviction to keep the seized assets.  Can't let them take ten years to get a conviction.
I agree with your stance though, the seizure should be concurrent to charges being filed.
In an ideal world, would also like to see metrics on police departments / officers and what percent of assets they seized gets returned.


Welcome to the war on drugs. It's kinda like the war on terrorism, only that we agreed that some of us will give up property instead of our rights to privacy as collateral damage.
Legitimately, you can't have it both ways. How many of us would scream "stupidity" when a car coming up I-35 driven by a Mexican national in Texas is stopped, searched (legitimately, however that happens) and is found to contain $250k cash hidden in the trunk? Do we let that go because we can't immediately tie it to illegal activity?

As soon as we allow that cashed to be seized then any time you and me are carrying around an undocumented bundle, that bundle is perhaps at risk due to the lack of oversight and due process around these issues.


I don't like it either.. But getting the government to do anything right and getting our a small minority of our law enforcement community to not abuse authority is no small task.

IMHO - there should be massive civil liability in cases where property is improperly seized and not returned.  Not liability just to the jurisdiction that took it, but liability all the way down to the officer that confiscated the property.   The way it is right now, best case you get your property returned minus a bunch of legal fees.


  
 

  I'm fine with the concept of seizures.  My issue is with the fact someone has to "settle" to get a portion of their money back (or spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal expenses), when there is no case being made against them.  Give law enforcement 3 months, 6 months, or even a year to bring charges, otherwise the seized assets are returned.  It shouldnt cost as much to get your assets back as it would've cost to defend yourself against criminal charges.

I wouldnt like having my pocketful of cash seized, but it'd be a pill I could swallow as long as I knew I would be getting it back and when I'd be getting it back (assuming there was no case against me).  Its the indefinite timeframe and subsequent unjustified costs that make me afraid of something being seized. 

gatzdon said:   
But the fact is, I'm not talking about $250,000 seizures, I'm talking about any and all seizures, especially the small ones.
Washington Post said: Half of the more than $5.5 million in cash seizures were for $141 or less, with more than a thousand for less than $20.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dc-police-plan-for-future-seizure-proceeds-years-in-advance-in-city-budget-documents/2014/11/15/7025edd2-6b76-11e4-b053-65cea7903f2e_story.html?tid=pm_investigations_pop 

It's a slippery slope.  Without constraints, there are no limits.

That's a potentially misleading statistic. How many of those small cash seizures are incidental to larger drug/non-cash seizures (seize a car, and there happens to be a $20 bill in the glove compartment)? It's not like cops are walking the streets randomly asking what you have in your pocket then seizing it.

Glitch99 said:    It's not like cops are walking the streets randomly asking what you have in your pocket then seizing it.
 

  
I think it's more like, Excuse me sir, are you black? Well then, how much money do you have in your pocket?

soundtechie said:   
Glitch99 said:    It's not like cops are walking the streets randomly asking what you have in your pocket then seizing it.
  
I think it's more like, Excuse me sir, are you black? Well then, how much money do you have in your pocket?

  90% of Blacks say "nunya."  The dumbest 10% volunteers for asset seizure.

feto said:   
soundtechie said:   
Glitch99 said:    It's not like cops are walking the streets randomly asking what you have in your pocket then seizing it.
  
I think it's more like, Excuse me sir, are you black? Well then, how much money do you have in your pocket?

  90% of Blacks say "nunya."  The dumbest 10% volunteers for asset seizure.

  Which brings us back to the court case: you can be walking along, a cop can stop you, check if you have an unpaid parking ticket, if you do he can search and seize.

soundtechie said:   
  Which brings us back to the court case: you can be walking along, a cop can stop you, check if you have an unpaid parking ticket, if you do he can search and seize.


Last I checked, you can't be stopped without cause. You can be asked for voluntary interaction and the difference between voluntary and involuntary isn't exactly clear in many cases.

But the rest is right, if you're detained, have an actionable issue that is technically "arrest-able" - you can be searched incident to that arrest.
  

soundtechie said:   
feto said:   
soundtechie said:   
Glitch99 said:    It's not like cops are walking the streets randomly asking what you have in your pocket then seizing it.
  
I think it's more like, Excuse me sir, are you black? Well then, how much money do you have in your pocket?

  90% of Blacks say "nunya."  The dumbest 10% volunteers for asset seizure.

  Which brings us back to the court case: you can be walking along, a cop can stop you, check if you have an unpaid parking ticket, if you do he can search and seize.

  Then lobby to change parking laws.  Until then, yes, there are consequences to ignoring them.

soundtechie said:   
 
  Which brings us back to the court case: you can be walking along, a cop can stop you, check if you have an unpaid parking ticket, if you do he can search and seize.

 I don't agree with the fact any warrant can get make a search legal, but people reap what they sow when they ignore parking tickets and let it turn into a warrants. Goes for any other situation where people think they can simply ignore a situation and it will go away (parking tickets, court summons, guy that got sued for craigslist printer, etc.). 

Glitch99 said:     I'm fine with the concept of seizures.  My issue is with the fact someone has to "settle" to get a portion of their money back (or spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal expenses), when there is no case being made against them.  Give law enforcement 3 months, 6 months, or even a year to bring charges, otherwise the seized assets are returned.  It shouldnt cost as much to get your assets back as it would've cost to defend yourself against criminal charges.

I wouldnt like having my pocketful of cash seized, but it'd be a pill I could swallow as long as I knew I would be getting it back and when I'd be getting it back (assuming there was no case against me).  Its the indefinite timeframe and subsequent unjustified costs that make me afraid of something being seized. 

  
I think a year is a little too long, but yes, if the time runs out, the funds/assets should be returned automatically at no cost to the person they were seized from.

hairybeast said:   
soundtechie said:   
 
  Which brings us back to the court case: you can be walking along, a cop can stop you, check if you have an unpaid parking ticket, if you do he can search and seize.

 I don't agree with the fact any warrant can get make a search legal, but people reap what they sow when they ignore parking tickets and let it turn into a warrants. Goes for any other situation where people think they can simply ignore a situation and it will go away (parking tickets, court summons, guy that got sued for craigslist printer, etc.). 

  The guy who got sued for the Craigslist printer actually won the case...

dcg9381 said:   
soundtechie said:   
  Which brings us back to the court case: you can be walking along, a cop can stop you, check if you have an unpaid parking ticket, if you do he can search and seize.


Last I checked, you can't be stopped without cause. You can be asked for voluntary interaction and the difference between voluntary and involuntary isn't exactly clear in many cases.

But the rest is right, if you're detained, have an actionable issue that is technically "arrest-able" - you can be searched incident to that arrest.
  

 Wrong. The court just ruled that even if the stop is unconstitutional (i.e. without cause), the results of a search are admissible if you have an outstanding warrant for any reason.

stanolshefski said:   
hairybeast said:   
soundtechie said:   
 
  Which brings us back to the court case: you can be walking along, a cop can stop you, check if you have an unpaid parking ticket, if you do he can search and seize.

 I don't agree with the fact any warrant can get make a search legal, but people reap what they sow when they ignore parking tickets and let it turn into a warrants. Goes for any other situation where people think they can simply ignore a situation and it will go away (parking tickets, court summons, guy that got sued for craigslist printer, etc.). 

  The guy who got sued for the Craigslist printer actually won the case...

  The case is not over yet.  It is back in the lower court after the appeals court ruled in favor of the seller.   According to the article and the courts, the seller failed to respond to the court documents (he claimed he never got them, which could be true or not) hence my believing he ignored the situation at hand and made matters worse for himself.   

Skipping 5 Messages...
TravelerMSY said:   Finally.

http://boingboing.net/2016/09/30/california-now-requires-convic....

  Progress certainly, but the $40k threshold would seem to still allow CA cops to profit from higher value items.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017