A Stitch in Haste

Why am I reading this on Fark and not on libertarian websites?

At the heart of the dispute are what the state calls "damming warrants." The name comes from the procedure that allows state prosecutors to get a court order to "dam" up all wire transfers meeting certain criteria until the person to whom the money is being sent can show that the money is for a legal purpose.

Assistant Attorney General Cameron Holmes said prosecutors use a computer algorithm to review every money transfer sent into Arizona. He said these tend to be in amounts between $800 and $1,500, usually in final payments to smugglers for ferrying people into the United States.

Then, under a court warrant, the funds are put into a special fund. The intended recipient can call a toll-free number to claim them. If no claim is made, the money is forfeited to the state.

But the lawsuit says the actions are far broader, with the state issuing warrants — generally good for 10-day periods — for all transfers exceeding a certain amount.

Attorney Tim Eckstein, who filed the papers on behalf of three individuals whose money was taken by the state, said those warrants originally affected transfers of $2,000 or more. Now transactions of as little as $500 coming from certain states are subject to seizure.

There's a term for such a system: Guilty until proven innocent. And it's a violation of both the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendments.

--No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. So demands the Fourth Amendment. So if there is no probable cause for a particular wire transfer — just seize them all — then what difference does a "warrant" make? These "damming warrants" ("damnable" would be more appropriate) are meaningless, and therefore void. Furthermore, "a lot of money" ($500?) is not probable cause of anything — there must be probable cause of wrongdoing, which is now eliminated under the damming warrants.

--No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. So demands the Fourteenth Amendment. Does the damming warrant and its presumption of guilt sound like due process?

What would Arizona prefer — that people carry around huge sums of cash rather than use wire transfers? Been there, seized that.

At least in that case a few months ago, where a never-convicted-of-anything motorist lost $127,400 to a drug-related civil forfeiture action, there was still some burden met by the government: "beyond a reasonable doubt" was diluted to "by a preponderance of the evidence." That was outrageous enough. But here we have something far worse: the Great Forbidden — guilty until proven innocent.

It's quite simple really: Money is not a crime. Possessing it is not a crime. Moving it is not a crime. Transferring it is not a crime. More is needed, and more must be proven by the government before it can confiscate someone's money. The government oversteps its authority when it presumes otherwise.

More thoughts from WindyPundit.