How police used a traffic stop to take $91,800 from an innocent man
vox.com
vox.com
When pulled over, never answer questions. You don't have to.
If the police officer asks you to remain once they've written the ticket, ask if you're being detained or if you're free to go. Once they've written the ticket, the stop is over, but aggressive police will try to fool people into thinking the stop is not over. The longer they can keep you there, the more pressure they can apply.
And if you did brake a traffic law, recieve the ticket. Say hey officer, sorry about that thing we both know I just did. If they probe further or try to search your car then stand your ground.
The guy had the right to remain silent, and he exercised it appropriately. Usually the people in these stories do boneheaded shit that earn them their outcome.
He admitted nothing, so they brought in the dog and faked the results to justify a search. At that point his testimony doesn't really matter-- the dog gave them probable cause to search. He did everything he should have done in this situation, including standing his ground-- unfortuantely your rights have limits when the cop you're dealing with is bent.
The only boneheaded thing he did was to sign the waiver, which very clearly stated in bold letters that he was relinquishing his rights over the money.
It’s not just the US, more laws get passed everywhere making more individual behavior illegal. It’s just too easy to catch you on something.
Police interrogations aren't like normal conversations. Even if you're innocent, if you misspeak it goes on the record the way you said it. Think about how many times you've been in a normal conversation and had to go back and clarify something you just said. Your friends are going to give you the benefit of the doubt; a prosecutor can use that kind of thing to make it look like you're changing your story.
There are countries in which your refusal to answer questions can be a factor in determining your guilt at a later trial, so you have to answer questions. But that's not a good thing.
Such proof is now needed.
>Parhamovich said the money was a friend’s.
And why not? It's their money.
It's just an anecdote, and not trying to sway one way or the other.
Parhamovich said he prefers having his cash with him on hand
in case opportunities present themselves to buy, for example, new instruments.
Civil forfeiture is shady as hell, but his reasoning for regularly carrying that much cash is flimsier than a chromebook.