In order to receive the items that I was carrying when I was arrested, I was required to sign 2 separate forms. One to receive my money, and the other to get my property back. When I made the claim that my money was also my property, the agent presiding over the signing said, “No sir, that’s your money. It’s not your property.”
What angle was he coming from here? Is he claiming that all of my income belongs to the state and the portion of it I’m allowed to keep is some sort of loan? Or am I missing a simple distinction?
The form stated that X amount of dollars was confiscated from me at the time of my arrest. My signature was required to confirm the amount was correct and to release the FED notes from the safe they were stored in while I spent time in the cage.
With that being said, I’m not sure if this is the states stance on the issue, or if the man I was speaking to misspeak.
v. to take one’s goods or property without legal right, although there may appear to be some lawful basis. In the case of a government seizing property, it may include taking without the just compensation as guaranteed by the Constitution. There are some acts of legal confiscation, such as taking an automobile used in illegal drug traffic.
So, they were returning what they took from you without right, which they admit on the notice, and ensuring that it was the correct amount. What the difference between the two forms?
I was paraphrasing what the form said, and chose the word confiscate because I felt that they did take my property without legal right. I’m sure theirs is a different opinion so using the word “confiscate” was probably misleading.
Neither of the forms were very detailed. They basically listed what was taken from me, then asked for a signature to confirm the lists correctness and to release the items from holding. The only difference between the two forms was the words “Money” and “Property”. This lead me to believe that the state made a distinction between money and property, otherwise there would have only been one form to fill out.
The fact that they had you sign an agreement implies something tricky. Either there is something underhanded in the agreement or there is something underhanded about it. One thing is certain. By signing both you legally agreed to their definition.
It’s hard to follow that rule when refusing to sign the document means losing my cash and belongings to the state.
I didn’t realize how authoritarian the whole process was until experiencing it first hand. I asked what would happen if I refused to sign each new document that was put before me. The cops answer never changed, “Then we’ll have to keep you here until you do.”
Probably a form confirming that they have returned your belongings to you. You must sign so that you are not able to sue them for theft. Now imagine the police were corrupt (in a private sense) and were pressuring you to sign this although they had not returned the whole of your belongings.
The old police here used to have forms you would sign confirming that you were not beaten up while in custody. It was very effective in reducing reports of police brutality as, yes, you were not allowed to leave unless you signed the form first.
I highly doubt the guy you were talking to even knew the reason for the difference, so getting a sensible answer out of him is pretty unlikely(though there’s a chance he decided to look it up because of you). In all odds, it’s just different procedures for dealing with most property and money(IIRC, they can arrest money), which gets you different forms(even if they are simple S&Rs of one another) due to simple bureaucratic logic.
confiscate