Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions w/ local, state police
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 2883500" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>Case law says "officer intuition" isn't a viable legal standard. Only reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause are. An officer can't go into a bank or a merchant and demand the information on a debit card without a warrant, but this court ruling says they can. A debit card transaction with a merchant or a bank is a consensual transaction between the card issuer, the card holder and the merchant or bank. Notice who's omitted from that consensual transaction? Law enforcement. So if the issuer, merchant or bank can require a warrant before providing account information, why is the holder not allowed to require one?</p><p></p><p>BTW, no debit card in the world has the account balance or transaction history on the face of the card. The court's lie that the magstripe simply contains the same info that's on the face of the card, is such a preposterously insane lie that its insulting they'd even utter it <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 2883500, member: 1132"] Case law says "officer intuition" isn't a viable legal standard. Only reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause are. An officer can't go into a bank or a merchant and demand the information on a debit card without a warrant, but this court ruling says they can. A debit card transaction with a merchant or a bank is a consensual transaction between the card issuer, the card holder and the merchant or bank. Notice who's omitted from that consensual transaction? Law enforcement. So if the issuer, merchant or bank can require a warrant before providing account information, why is the holder not allowed to require one? BTW, no debit card in the world has the account balance or transaction history on the face of the card. The court's lie that the magstripe simply contains the same info that's on the face of the card, is such a preposterously insane lie that its insulting they'd even utter it :( [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Holder limits seized-asset sharing process that split billions w/ local, state police
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom