- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 8th circuit rules legal to seize and scan credit/debit cards during traffic stop
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:46 pm to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:46 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
And in scanning it, I assume other information, like balance and routing numbers would come up as well.
Not according to the opinion.
1
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:47 pm to lsu2006
quote:
The money on the cards wasn't taken to begin with. No clue where OP got that notion from.
The first sentence says the cards were scanned after they were seized. Is it unreasonable to assume the money was seized with the cards?
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:47 pm to lsu2006
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:48 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Is it unreasonable to assume the money was seized with the cards?
Yes.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:48 pm to Breesus
quote:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:49 pm to NYNolaguy1
My license is in my phone case. Everything else in secret compartment under Seat
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:50 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Yes
Which lead me to my previous question-why I was asking if the money was given back to the perp if it wasn't seized. I simply have a hard time believing that.
In the interest of being thorough, I will edit my title.
This post was edited on 6/14/16 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:51 pm to lsu2006
quote:
At trial, United States Secret Service Agent Nicholas Wadding testified about credit card theft and identity theft. He explained that nearly all plastic cards have three tracks, or lines, of information on the magnetic strip. The first line has the account number, the second line has the credit card holder's name, and the third line, which is discretionary, may have a frequent flier number or some specific identifier.According to Peter Grimm, an American Express fraud investigator, the magnetic strip also generally contains the card's expiration date. The information contained in the magnetic strip should match the information on the front of the card. A card is said to be "re-encoded" when the magnetic strip information is rewritten. The ten American Express cards confiscated from De L'Isle's vehicle all had his name on the front of the cards with different account numbers, but the cards had no information on the magnetic strips. Grimm testified that it is significant that a card has a blank magnetic strip because that means it is counterfeit. All American Express cards are issued with account information contained in the magnetic strip. It is also significant that the magnetic strips on the Parker's PumpPal Club gas debit card, Quik Trip prepaid card, American Express gift cards, Visa debit and gift cards, Mastercard debit card, and Subway gift card all contained legitimate American Express customer account information. American Express would never encode credit card holder information on the back of these types of cards. If a gift card has been re-encoded with account information that was not originally there, it is a counterfeit card.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:51 pm to lsu2006
That's the principle our government and country were founded on
This post was edited on 6/14/16 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 6/14/16 at 12:53 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Which lead me to my previous question-why I was asking if the money was given back to the perp if it wasn't seized.
What are you talking about?
Posted on 6/14/16 at 1:00 pm to lsu2006
quote:
What are you talking about?
Guy gets pulled over on the side of the road for whatever reason. Cop finds he has a stash of illegal/stolen/counterfeit cards. Cop scans cards to verify identity of said cards.
1)Your contention was that the money on the cards was never seized, only the cards. I had a hard time believing that.
2)I asked if the funds in the siezed cards cards was given back to the perp since they were never siezed to begin with.
Make sense?
Posted on 6/14/16 at 1:01 pm to NYNolaguy1
Terrible ruling, this better be reversed
Posted on 6/14/16 at 1:02 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Your contention was that the money on the cards was never seized, only the cards. I had a hard time believing that.
Why?
quote:
2)I asked if the funds in the siezed cards cards was given back to the perp since they were never siezed to begin with.
Where is there anything about funds being returned?
Posted on 6/14/16 at 1:03 pm to NYNolaguy1
I'm honestly not sure you know what point you're trying to make
Posted on 6/14/16 at 1:09 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Why
Because they were used in the commission of a crime. Civil asset forfeiture (and criminal in this case) allows officers to seize items that were either used or were the proceeds of a crime. It's not a very high bar to jump through to convince someone this dude was doing something illegal, and with a conviction they don't even need to file separate civil proceedings to keep the money.
quote:
Where is there anything about funds being returned?
There wasn't. Which is what lead me to believe they were siezed to begin with.
I feel like you're missing what I am saying somehow.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 1:13 pm to NYNolaguy1
I see what you're saying for sure, but there was no mention of criminal forfeiture/seizure of money or retuning thereof in the article or opinion so I'm a little unsure why you're talking about it.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 1:14 pm to lsu2006
quote:
I'm honestly not sure you know what point you're trying to make
My point is that the funds were siezed after his cards were scanned. You disagree.
The bigger picture I am trying to paint here is that this will lead to bigger abuses of civil asset forfeiture because now everyone's cards are available to be scanned by law enforcement without a warrant. Depending on the LEO, and how much they feel you should have in your bank account, your funds could be seized based on your justification of how you got your money. If you can't justify how it got there or how much is in there, do you think that will be glossed over by the LEO? It's the exact same scenario as getting pulled over with a lot of cash.
Posted on 6/14/16 at 1:20 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
My point is that the funds were siezed after his cards were scanned.
Link, please?
Posted on 6/14/16 at 1:21 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Link, please?
Before I go searching for this link, would you agree to my second, larger concern?
Posted on 6/14/16 at 1:23 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
My point is that the funds were siezed after his cards were scanned. You disagree.
Just going off actual facts
quote:
The bigger picture I am trying to paint here is that this will lead to bigger abuses of civil asset forfeiture because now everyone's cards are available to be scanned by law enforcement without a warrant. Depending on the LEO, and how much they feel you should have in your bank account, your funds could be seized based on your justification of how you got your money.
Absolutely nothing in the opinion indicates officers could access balance information.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News