(07-02-2015 09:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It does raise a lot of questions.

There is no good reason for moving that sort of money in this manner.

That's not really the point though, is it? It's his money. Assuming it was legit, yes, I know that's a big assumption these days, he'll probably just do a bank transfer next time.

Yea, but given the "totality of the circumstance' that is the point.

No reasonable person travels with that sort of money on them. No reputable merchant requires that you deliver cash in this way, in fact, no individual seller operating legally does.

It's so off the wall that it gives rise to enough suspicion that a reasonable person would think he was doing this to commit some form of crime.

So just because the government is suspicious, that gives them the right to take your stuff?

Cops took $12k from a kid traveling cross country to move in with a relative and go to college. It was a gift from a family member. Cops took it saying that they figured it would be used for drugs.

Cops seized the house of a family whose child was arrested for meth (or some similar drug). They said they thought the house could be used to traffic drugs. So they siezed the house.

Another man had $20k in cash to go buy a car off a guy from Craigslist. The cop who confiscated it didn't include that in his report, even though the guy told the cop he was buying a car. The cop said in an interview that he was told about it, but still failed to put it in the report.

None of these people were arrested for anything illegal, so why should their property be taken for anything less?

Arrested under the appropriate level of suspicion is fine with me.

none of these people were arrested or charged with any crime. Why does the police get to keep their money?

(07-02-2015 09:39 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  That's not really the point though, is it? It's his money. Assuming it was legit, yes, I know that's a big assumption these days, he'll probably just do a bank transfer next time.

Yea, but given the "totality of the circumstance' that is the point.

No reasonable person travels with that sort of money on them. No reputable merchant requires that you deliver cash in this way, in fact, no individual seller operating legally does.

It's so off the wall that it gives rise to enough suspicion that a reasonable person would think he was doing this to commit some form of crime.

So just because the government is suspicious, that gives them the right to take your stuff?

Cops took $12k from a kid traveling cross country to move in with a relative and go to college. It was a gift from a family member. Cops took it saying that they figured it would be used for drugs.

Cops seized the house of a family whose child was arrested for meth (or some similar drug). They said they thought the house could be used to traffic drugs. So they siezed the house.

Another man had $20k in cash to go buy a car off a guy from Craigslist. The cop who confiscated it didn't include that in his report, even though the guy told the cop he was buying a car. The cop said in an interview that he was told about it, but still failed to put it in the report.

None of these people were arrested for anything illegal, so why should their property be taken for anything less?

Arrested under the appropriate level of suspicion is fine with me.

none of these people were arrested or charged with any crime. Why does the police get to keep their money?

Those are civil forfeiture issues.

The TSA issue actually is different from a legal standpoint I believe.

Civil forfeiture laws are essentially cases against property, not people.

(07-02-2015 09:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It does raise a lot of questions.

There is no good reason for moving that sort of money in this manner.

That's not really the point though, is it? It's his money. Assuming it was legit, yes, I know that's a big assumption these days, he'll probably just do a bank transfer next time.

Yea, but given the "totality of the circumstance' that is the point.

No reasonable person travels with that sort of money on them. No reputable merchant requires that you deliver cash in this way, in fact, no individual seller operating legally does.

It's so off the wall that it gives rise to enough suspicion that a reasonable person would think he was doing this to commit some form of crime.

So just because the government is suspicious, that gives them the right to take your stuff?

Cops took $12k from a kid traveling cross country to move in with a relative and go to college. It was a gift from a family member. Cops took it saying that they figured it would be used for drugs.

Cops seized the house of a family whose child was arrested for meth (or some similar drug). They said they thought the house could be used to traffic drugs. So they siezed the house.

Another man had $20k in cash to go buy a car off a guy from Craigslist. The cop who confiscated it didn't include that in his report, even though the guy told the cop he was buying a car. The cop said in an interview that he was told about it, but still failed to put it in the report.

None of these people were arrested for anything illegal, so why should their property be taken for anything less?

Arrested under the appropriate level of suspicion is fine with me.

But if not charged with any crime, the seized money should be returned.

(07-02-2015 09:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:39 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yea, but given the "totality of the circumstance' that is the point.

No reasonable person travels with that sort of money on them. No reputable merchant requires that you deliver cash in this way, in fact, no individual seller operating legally does.

It's so off the wall that it gives rise to enough suspicion that a reasonable person would think he was doing this to commit some form of crime.

So just because the government is suspicious, that gives them the right to take your stuff?

Cops took $12k from a kid traveling cross country to move in with a relative and go to college. It was a gift from a family member. Cops took it saying that they figured it would be used for drugs.

Cops seized the house of a family whose child was arrested for meth (or some similar drug). They said they thought the house could be used to traffic drugs. So they siezed the house.

Another man had $20k in cash to go buy a car off a guy from Craigslist. The cop who confiscated it didn't include that in his report, even though the guy told the cop he was buying a car. The cop said in an interview that he was told about it, but still failed to put it in the report.

None of these people were arrested for anything illegal, so why should their property be taken for anything less?

Arrested under the appropriate level of suspicion is fine with me.

none of these people were arrested or charged with any crime. Why does the police get to keep their money?

Those are civil forfeiture issues.

The TSA issue actually is different from a legal standpoint I believe.

Civil forfeiture laws are essentially cases against property, not people.

so in the 3 cases I stated, do you feel the people should have been allowed to keep their money?

(07-02-2015 09:42 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:39 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  So just because the government is suspicious, that gives them the right to take your stuff?

Cops took $12k from a kid traveling cross country to move in with a relative and go to college. It was a gift from a family member. Cops took it saying that they figured it would be used for drugs.

Cops seized the house of a family whose child was arrested for meth (or some similar drug). They said they thought the house could be used to traffic drugs. So they siezed the house.

Another man had $20k in cash to go buy a car off a guy from Craigslist. The cop who confiscated it didn't include that in his report, even though the guy told the cop he was buying a car. The cop said in an interview that he was told about it, but still failed to put it in the report.

None of these people were arrested for anything illegal, so why should their property be taken for anything less?

Arrested under the appropriate level of suspicion is fine with me.

none of these people were arrested or charged with any crime. Why does the police get to keep their money?

Those are civil forfeiture issues.

The TSA issue actually is different from a legal standpoint I believe.

Civil forfeiture laws are essentially cases against property, not people.

so in the 3 cases I stated, do you feel the people should have been allowed to keep their money?

I don't know anything about those cases so I couldn't give you an informed answer.

(07-02-2015 09:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  That's not really the point though, is it? It's his money. Assuming it was legit, yes, I know that's a big assumption these days, he'll probably just do a bank transfer next time.

Yea, but given the "totality of the circumstance' that is the point.

No reasonable person travels with that sort of money on them. No reputable merchant requires that you deliver cash in this way, in fact, no individual seller operating legally does.

It's so off the wall that it gives rise to enough suspicion that a reasonable person would think he was doing this to commit some form of crime.

So just because the government is suspicious, that gives them the right to take your stuff?

Cops took $12k from a kid traveling cross country to move in with a relative and go to college. It was a gift from a family member. Cops took it saying that they figured it would be used for drugs.

Cops seized the house of a family whose child was arrested for meth (or some similar drug). They said they thought the house could be used to traffic drugs. So they siezed the house.

Another man had $20k in cash to go buy a car off a guy from Craigslist. The cop who confiscated it didn't include that in his report, even though the guy told the cop he was buying a car. The cop said in an interview that he was told about it, but still failed to put it in the report.

None of these people were arrested for anything illegal, so why should their property be taken for anything less?

Arrested under the appropriate level of suspicion is fine with me.

But if not charged with any crime, the seized money should be returned.

I do not agree entirely.

If they haven't found anything amiss after a brief investigation, other than the person travelling with lots of money, then the money should be returned.

(07-02-2015 09:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yea, but given the "totality of the circumstance' that is the point.

No reasonable person travels with that sort of money on them. No reputable merchant requires that you deliver cash in this way, in fact, no individual seller operating legally does.

It's so off the wall that it gives rise to enough suspicion that a reasonable person would think he was doing this to commit some form of crime.

So just because the government is suspicious, that gives them the right to take your stuff?

Cops took $12k from a kid traveling cross country to move in with a relative and go to college. It was a gift from a family member. Cops took it saying that they figured it would be used for drugs.

Cops seized the house of a family whose child was arrested for meth (or some similar drug). They said they thought the house could be used to traffic drugs. So they siezed the house.

Another man had $20k in cash to go buy a car off a guy from Craigslist. The cop who confiscated it didn't include that in his report, even though the guy told the cop he was buying a car. The cop said in an interview that he was told about it, but still failed to put it in the report.

None of these people were arrested for anything illegal, so why should their property be taken for anything less?

Arrested under the appropriate level of suspicion is fine with me.

But if not charged with any crime, the seized money should be returned.

I do not agree entirely.

We'll just agree to disagree. I just don't see how anyone not charged with any crime can have their asset taken away by the govt. I mean, that's gestapo level stuff. BTW, I don't agree with emininent domain either, unless a citized is paid according to fair market value, etc.

(07-02-2015 09:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:38 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:30 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:54 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yea, but given the "totality of the circumstance' that is the point.

No reasonable person travels with that sort of money on them. No reputable merchant requires that you deliver cash in this way, in fact, no individual seller operating legally does.

It's so off the wall that it gives rise to enough suspicion that a reasonable person would think he was doing this to commit some form of crime.

So just because the government is suspicious, that gives them the right to take your stuff?

Cops took $12k from a kid traveling cross country to move in with a relative and go to college. It was a gift from a family member. Cops took it saying that they figured it would be used for drugs.

Cops seized the house of a family whose child was arrested for meth (or some similar drug). They said they thought the house could be used to traffic drugs. So they siezed the house.

Another man had $20k in cash to go buy a car off a guy from Craigslist. The cop who confiscated it didn't include that in his report, even though the guy told the cop he was buying a car. The cop said in an interview that he was told about it, but still failed to put it in the report.

None of these people were arrested for anything illegal, so why should their property be taken for anything less?

Arrested under the appropriate level of suspicion is fine with me.

But if not charged with any crime, the seized money should be returned.

I do not agree entirely.

so you think that if someone has a large amount of money, their money should be legally taken by the cops, even if there is no evidence of wrong doing?

(07-02-2015 09:57 AM)VA49er Wrote:  We'll just agree to disagree. I just don't see how anyone not charged with any crime can have their asset taken away by the govt. I mean, that's gestapo level stuff. BTW, I don't agree with emininent domain either, unless a citized is paid according to fair market value, etc.

Eminent Domain would have been fine if it had stayed within the confines of the original intent of public service improvements. Things like roads, substations or waterworks that can't go anywhere else. When ED started to be used for commercial projects and sweetheart deals for developers is where the abuse really took off.

(07-02-2015 10:18 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  I was listening to Elliot in the Morning yesterday when the wife of the TSA agent that screened him called in. She said the money was found in a special compartment in the lining of the bag and that the passenger smelled of weed.

The "unspecified agency" in the story is the DEA (which is actually the agency that technically seized the money).

I had a cop pull me over and tried to search my car because he said he smelled weed. I had never had weed in my car and he was full of it. Just wanted a reason to look around.

maybe the guy didn't want luggage handlers going through his luggage and finding cash, and pocketing some. That would be a legit reason to put it in a hidden compartment.

(07-02-2015 10:18 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  I was listening to Elliot in the Morning yesterday when the wife of the TSA agent that screened him called in. She said the money was found in a special compartment in the lining of the bag and that the passenger smelled of weed.

The "unspecified agency" in the story is the DEA (which is actually the agency that technically seized the money).

So wouldn't it have been smarter to have inserted a GPS tracker in the bag to follow the money and have agents at arrival location to follow and see if any illegal activity followed
. He was probably legit anyway and this was an easy seizure for the Government.

(07-02-2015 10:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:57 AM)VA49er Wrote:  We'll just agree to disagree. I just don't see how anyone not charged with any crime can have their asset taken away by the govt. I mean, that's gestapo level stuff. BTW, I don't agree with emininent domain either, unless a citized is paid according to fair market value, etc.

Eminent Domain would have been fine if it had stayed within the confines of the original intent of public service improvements. Things like roads, substations or waterworks that can't go anywhere else. When ED started to be used for commercial projects and sweetheart deals for developers is where the abuse really took off.

+1. Like everything else, the scope of Eminent Domain seems to have increased, for no good reason.

(07-02-2015 10:18 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  I was listening to Elliot in the Morning yesterday when the wife of the TSA agent that screened him called in. She said the money was found in a special compartment in the lining of the bag and that the passenger smelled of weed.

I no more believe her than I believe in the man in the moon.

(07-02-2015 08:35 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  While you have to be dumb as a box of rocks to carry 75K of cash around and especially through a TSA checkpoint....This is simply just theft by the government. Total BS.

I own myself. Therefore I own the fruits of the labor I produce. No one has the right to take those fruits from me. Otherwise...I am truly a slave.

If you are going overseas, sometimes you need a lot of cash. Now that is a whole lot.

http://www.cato.org/events/policing-prof...forfeiture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...ant-a-cut/

Two comments.

1) This brings up an interesting point about liberty vs security. Is it worth it to give up some liberty, i.e. the ability of a law abiding citizen to carry around large sums of cash without being accosted by the police if it decreases the effectiveness of law enforcement to fight drug trafficking and organized crime? That's what we're discussing here. I tend to err on the side of missing out on opportunities to crack down of crime in order to preserve liberty.

2) I think it's interesting to see those who tend to oppose investigations into the use of deadly force by police officers have the same feelings for giving them the benefit of the doubt when engaging in taking property from citizens for possible illegal uses.

(07-02-2015 08:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It does raise a lot of questions.

There is no good reason for moving that sort of money in this manner.

I took almost 20k cash overseas one time for a minor business arrangement that didn't involve drugs and, so far as I know, didn't involve bribery. Foreign governments don't always take credit cards and they don't take checks. With inflation, that would probably be 30k now.

So I could see him needing a substantial amount--if this was overseas. Domestic-he was probably doing something illegal.

As for the compartment in the suitcase, have you ever even had $1,000 in twenties? The stack gets thick pretty quick. Can get uncomfortable in a money belt.

(07-02-2015 10:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It does raise a lot of questions.

There is no good reason for moving that sort of money in this manner.

I took almost 20k cash overseas one time for a minor business arrangement that didn't involve drugs and, so far as I know, didn't involve bribery. Foreign governments don't always take credit cards and they don't take checks. With inflation, that would probably be 30k now.

So I could see him needing a substantial amount--if this was overseas. Domestic-he was probably doing something illegal.

Then law enforcement should do its job and build the case to prove that he was engaged in illegal activity. Civil Forfeiture is anti-American. It's better for a criminal to go free than an innocent be punished by the system.

(07-02-2015 09:56 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  If they haven't found anything amiss after a brief investigation, other than the person travelling with lots of money, then the money should be returned.

Absolutely. Then do an IRS audit. If you can't find anything then, there's nothing to find.