Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a veterans life savings
ij.org
ij.org
They kept the money for 200 days, in violation of the Federal statute requiring the DEA to file a case within 90 days. It's unclear what, if any, repercussions there will be for the DEA for violating the law. Astoundingly, the Nevada Highway Patrol did not violate the law. That only means, of course, it's a terrible law and needs to be eliminated. Hopefully there will be some consequences for police that abuse this bad law, but that will have to come from local voters.
Note that $87k in 100's is a stack about 4" thick. It sickens me to hear people blaming the victim for the non-crime of holding his own cash, with bank receipts, and for the non-crime of simply telling the officer the truth and being totally cooperative. The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police. They are not your friend, they are not trustworthy, and they will hurt you, badly, and suffer no consequences.
1 - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/marine-veteran-suing-nh...
Would that have changed the outcome in this case?
We know for sure that this cooperation led to the money being seized. We can't know if staying silent would have led to a different outcome.
He could have just straight up lied, or interpreted the question in a way favorable to him (I thought you meant millions, not less than $100k).
He cooperated at all points and was doing nothing wrong. The logical conclusion is that being truthful and cooperative is not going to keep you out of trouble.
> The lesson here is clear: do not cooperate with the police
Suddenly clamming up is a problem, doing so less suddenly is not (I'm elsewhere in this thread roughly advocating for clamming up about anything not directly related to the traffic stop)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246
I don’t see how telling the officer you have $87k is probable cause for a search, anyway.
First, it is not illegal to have a car or cash.
Second, in the US at least the government does recognize a limited right to privacy in the form of the 4th amendment which spies to States as well. An officer cannot search you, your car or your home without a warrant from a judge or a tangible reason to believe you are committing a crime.
That’s a very specific question. Did the officer already know the answer?
That reminds me of something I think I read. Is there are companies that specialize in identifying motorists that are carrying large amounts of cash. They make money by selling that info to the police.
Also, the police have a limited time to conduct the stop. Once they give you back your license, you can immediately leave regardless of what the officer requests that you do. The stop is over at that point, and they cannot legally detain you any longer.
/s
I have family from the countryside, and while they're not robbed outright, they're driven on the most inefficient way that drives up the meter.
Tourists can pay up to 100 dollars for a trip from the airport for example (legally if morally questionable).
A similar trip on a rideshare is less than half, but they're banned from the airport.
Plus, taxi drivers are unionized and are terrible drivers, while rideshare drivers are regularly kicked out if they give substandard service.
I suspect there are some missing details. Why was the original stopping officer following him for so long looking for an excuse to pull him over?
AFAIK this is only true in a very limited set of local jurisdictions.
The use of drug dogs to manufacture probable cause is pretty well documented.
Cops have lots of practice with the rights words to say about the person's driving, behavior, appearance, and so on. Or the right things to see. Like a ziploc bag, even if there's sandwich crumbs in it. Or ashes, "residue" (i.e. brown spots on anything), etc. Or constricted pupils, even though it's sunny outside and therefore expected.
My favorite one I saw was Krispy Kreme leftovers being "meth". https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/16/558147669...
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-police-use-dogs-...
He still should not have cooperated, of course. Any extra effort you force the cops to go through gives you some protection.
"Don't Talk to the Police Part 2" https://youtu.be/tIt-l2YmH8M
(Thanks for the downvote, I guess HN is also mostly white.)
If you're of a minority race and don't consent to searches and things there's a very high chance you will be tasered and arrested.
I was always taught by people of non-white races that if I value my life, I should always do what the police say, and file lawsuits later.
The notion of "innocent until proven guilty" and "you won't be punished before being found guilty" is long, long gone in the USA.
Not talking to the police will not protect you - what will protect you is not being there when the police arrive. Don't answer the door if the police knock. If anyone has called the police for any reason, including those not involving you, leave immediately.
If you have to interact with the police, behave in a respectful-to-the-point-of-obsequious; be warm, friendly and cooperative. Maybe they'll ignore you. But if you stubbornly insist on your rights, and refuse to talk, they will see that as disrespect and aggression and they will hurt you.
edit: haha, scrolling down this is linked another 3+ times
This is exactly what I teach my children. Every time we are driving around and see a police car I repeat the lesson.
"So when the officer asked him about carrying cash, Stephen said “yes.” When the officer asked to search his car, he said “yes.” And when the officer asked about the source of the cash, Stephen showed him over two years’ worth of bank receipts. Stephen did everything he was told, and answered every question he was asked."
While you agree it is not a crime, the reality of enforcement measures like this means it de facto is considered one in the gestalt of law enforcement. It should not ever be construed as suspicious to carry around large quantities of cash. It is not acceptable to see someone with over 2000 dollars in cash, and assume they are up to something.
People are losing sight of the fact that financial privacy was the default for much of history, and the new phenomena of financial surveillance since the 2000's is absolutely a governmental power play, utilizing the financial system as a tool for soft power projection in that the hand that defines the set of transactions that can be conveniently done wields an immense amount of power and influence in people's day to day lives.
This is a shining example of how the United States has abandoned any semblance of being a fundamentally high trust society anymore.
In a just world, neither talking to the police nor carrying cash would result in your money getting stolen.
That said even if it was stupid and it was an obvious mistake. Why mention he made a mistake at all? If not to point out that he shares some of the blame because of that mistake?
It might be good advice, but only if it carries an alternative. Pointing out a risk isn't advice, it's a warning. "don't carry large amounts of cash because it might get stolen" vs "electronic transfers between two bank accounts lowers the risk your money will be stolen".
But I assume we both agree but that's not really a helpful piece of advice in this case.
On the other hand, it's relevant to remind everyone that replying to questions from the law enforcement can get you in trouble although you did nothing wrong. (I don't think anyone is blaming him for answering as that's the normal thing to do.)
Do you really think this situation would have resolved into “aw shucks, you got me” if he had said this?
personally I'd have been polite but firm and said "sorry officer, I'm uncomfortable answering questions."
I do no consent to a search but will cooperate if required
To me, this all says: naivete, a lack of learning. If the cops want to escalate it and infringe on his rights, he can then lawyer up and fight it.
I winced when I read "Stephen did everything he was told" because that led to the police stealing his money. But what else can he do? The cop has the power to kill him and very likely get away with it. And it happens with enough frequency to be a real threat.
E: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/05/13/should-c...
cops (allegedly) stole $225000 but QI had them covered in the 9th circuit. scotus declined to pick up the case. for some background, the courts have declined to do anything about QI. they say it's legislator's job to fix it. odds are slim anything will happen.
This response from the courts is maddening to me, since the courts invented QI. It’s your damn problem, clean it up yourself!
I mean, at this point I’ll take anyone who will clean it up, but it’s such a shameful passing of the buck.
yes i am angry.
What would be different about "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a person's life savings" or "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a citizen's life savings" ?
I understand that there is some veneration of veterans, but don't all citizens have the same rights?
Source: Watching news articles over decades of the VA denying "service related" for injuries and poisoning, so the government isn't held responsible. Agent Orange and cancer, for example. Or burn pits in the middle east wars. Or concussions from explosions.
For legal cases, a drug runner having her cash unconstitutionally seized is a winner. The defendant is not sympathetic. But as you say, she has her rights that the court should recognise.
It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. (“Unreasonable” is a big word.) That would make it a legislative question.
In politics, sympathy matters. Guilty people having their rights violated doesn’t tend to rouse the majority. That’s where someone who can cut through to a Blue Lives Matter activist carries merit.
It seems pretty clear to me that you have to tie the bill of rights in knots to justify civil asset forfeiture as constitutional.
There is unfortunately some pretty deep precedent for states (note: less so the U.S. government) holding property while disputes around it were adjudicated, in some cases going back to the founding of our republic. For details look at the opinions in the cases IJ has previously filed.
The fact that the DEA ignored the 90-day timeline for filing a case, on the other hand, may be material if it can be shown to form a pattern of behaviour…
I disagree. I think it’s plain as day that civil asset forfeiture as currently practiced is unconstitutional. The only thing unclear is whether the Supreme Court will recognize it as such
What if Mr Lara (who is not a guilty or accused drug runner) has not been a veteran?
Sorry, I accidentally a word, and this changed the meaning.
"not quite the same" is of course UK English for "it's totally different"
>Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' veteran suicide claim
As a non-UK person, am curious about the use of the word "veteran" in the headline. What would be different about "Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' person suicide claim" or "Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' citizen suicide claim" ?
I understand that there is some veneration of veterans, but don't all citizens have the same rights? Since you're in London, perhaps you can shed some light on this for me.
1) this is whataboutism. One can ask about one thing when another thing exists, it's not a valid rebuke to say "what about that?". I have given no opinion on that BBC story either way, as it's not relevant. I'm not the country that I'm in, for starters. I would gladly criticise its politics when it's on topic and in good faith. Here it is neither.
2) "shocked" is your spin, and an inaccurate one. I specifically said "curious".
3) as you are repeatedly refusing to address, these are not actually comparable - who in the US case is comparable for the armed forces minister talking about the veteran? Who in the US case has the remit to talk about veterans, specifically?
This is a waste of our time.
Are they just going to switch some logos and keep it up?
You would expect the "gov.af" domain to change hands?
similarly, https://twitter.com/POTUS does when the administration changes.
From what I can tell previous administration was trying to sabotage civilized transfer in every possible way… and the fallout is on display, including AF withdrawal.
However, is/was there such setup in AF government? For all I know, everyone just packed and went home/abroad…
I imagine they sit somewhere in government building, look out the window and “oh, wells, here goes last plane out of Kabul! Time to switch flags!”
On another level, even though all citizens have the same rights, it's nonetheless a bit ironic for police to abuse those who've actively put their lives on the line to defend them.
This kind of unintended impact should have been forseen, but I guess it wasn't. Goes to show how hard it is to create good law.
If it goes into the government's hands, they get the benefit. If its destroyed everyone gets a small benefit.
For cases of real property, auction it off then destroy the cash.
Why do you think it wasn't forseen?
US Federal foreign policy IS fucked however, and I can see how ‘the Great Satan’ arose as an epithet.
Take some single mother in a backwards part of a backwards state making near enough the absolute minimum wage. If her rights are curtailed even further, it’s not like she can just up and move.
You need:
- the means to move
- a network (or the skills to build one) at your destination
- the general knowledge to know where is good to go to
- the street smarts to not get exploited when you arrive
Though at the same time there are many who don’t dream and just get stuck in the drudgery and lose the will the fight despite having a good shot. Demoralized.
Moreover, oversight and accountability cost money, which leads to more bloat, which leads to more people complaining about government.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith
And you have the data to back that up or is it just simple libertarian zealotry?
There are so many other forms of power abuse: economic power abuse from income inequalities (e.g: corporations bribing politicians with campaign contributions), intimidation by violence (e.g: criminals, abusive domestic partners), cults and other ideologically closed communities (e.g. Jehovah Witnesses, fundamentalist/orthodox religions), frauds and misleading propaganda (e.g. Purdue labs sparking opioid epidemics with Oxycontin), ...
But for libertarians' paranoia is just government, government, government,...
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
And btw, I also mentioned the ongoing plague of opioids addiction sparked by Purdue pharma. Didn't you read it?
The laws upholding slavery were government action, without which there would have been no slave trade because without government support to hunt them down the slaves would all just run away.
> the Dutch East Indian Company colonization of Indonesia
The Dutch East Indian Company was essentially a government. You can't "colonize" anything and not be a government.
> drugs traffic in the 20th century
The result of government prohibition creating a black market.
> the cumulative effects of poisoning from tetraethyl lead
> the ongoing plague of opioids addiction sparked by Purdue pharma
These things are certainly bad, but Stalin killed more than 20 million people. If you were to nuke five cities the size of Los Angeles it wouldn't be that many people. These things aren't even the same order of magnitude.
The trick is to stop treating "the government" as some monolithic "other", and work to make the government part of us; made out of the same cloth as everyone else. If you don't like what the government is doing, then get more active in government. Any barriers to everyday citizens becoming active in government should be torn down as much as possible. Then giving the government power is the same as giving everyone power.
This is what libertarians and anarchists never seem to understand (or intentionally ignore). There's no such thing as "limited government" if you think of "the government" as a collection of entities that have power over your life. If you're lucky, you can have some influence on the makeup of those entities: mega-corporations, billionaires, tribal warlords, 70-year-old white supremacists, crime bosses, religious chosen-ones, feudal lords, or us. Let's work hard to skew it toward being us as much as we can, and stop pretending that if we take power out of the hands of one entity that we call "the government", then that power just goes away and nobody else exercises it.
The existence of that constraint on government power does not imply a power vacuum. If the government can't take your property without due process, that doesn't imply that a corporation can, because the restriction on government takings doesn't prevent the government from passing and enforcing laws against property theft by others. They're two separate things.
We could, and should, make civil asset forfeiture unconstitutional. Arguably it already is and the right case just hasn't made it to the Supreme Court yet. That's an example of a constraint on government power and it's a good thing.
"Man was transporting life savings to his new home. Had 10 years of receipts proving ownership of the money in his possession."
Prosecutors (not everywhere in calls them DAs) have a huge disincentive: they rely on police officers to testify, investigate and collect evidence.
If they’re not attempting to prosecute potential crimes, they should be disbarred. If cops are lying or omitting evidence, they should be fired and charged themselves with obstruction.
The current route is eroding our faith in the system which is showing it’s result already.
Many people are anti-vax because of their distrust. But there’s MANY examples.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lar...
California is averaging $25m per year the past 17 years; Illinois is averaging $33m per year; Texas is averaging $18m per year; Florida is averaging $49m per year. Some of the best states are Idaho, Montana, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, West Virginia, Iowa, Wyoming, Hawaii, Oregon, Connecticut and Missouri.
Here's an infographic by the Institute for Justice for 2018, sizing the states by their civil asset forfeiture thefts (note, the color of the box doesn't coordinate to the scale of theft, that coordinates to state law grades):
https://i.imgur.com/sqg4FiC.jpg
It's too bad these scumbags aren't targeting Michael Dell ($50b), Jim Walton ($65b) or MacKenzie Scott ($61b) with civil asset forfeiture. Sorry MacKenzie, that Amazon stock no longer belongs to you, it has been 'impounded' by the Washington State Police. It's being held as, uhm, evidence that you may have had a role in the operation of a massive counterfeit goods ring. Congress or the Supreme Court might finally get around to stopping the practice (or maybe they'd just place a ceiling on how much you can steal from one person).
Ideally we could accept that this (or any other given topic) is bad without feeling the need to exaggerate its significance to ourselves. This is what I miss the most about the pre-Twitter days.
Bring on the downvotes.
E.g., yes, "those they (police) think they can get away with" but not "those who have a lot of assets to forfeit".
I think most of the cases I've read about on this site were like (non-white) people flying with, say, $25,000 (and who could credibly claim that was roughly their total liquid net worth).
Also, If you are a minority, and the police stop you while driving, you are probably more worried about other things like police violence, than civil asset forfeiture (this doesn't excuse civil asset forfeiture ofc)
Multnomah County featured a lot on COPS. That Sheriff was camera ready.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=asset+forfeiture+classes&t=lm&ia=w...
Of course, the reading comprehension of people in this thread has been aggressively low, so I will repeat that none of this vindicates CF.
[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/4...
Mistake number one. The only things you should be saying to a cop are "lawyer" and "". They ask if they can search your vehicle? The answer is no, always, on principle.
And even though, on principle, there's nothing wrong with it, why would you ride around with 86k in cash on you? That was also a mistake.
What the officers did was wrong, civil asset forfeiture is wrong, the man was well within his rights, but at the end of the day you're responsible for yourself. Know your rights, know your recourse, exercise them, and protect yourself from everybody, even the Good Guys™
I'm not saying 'great law guys, nothing to see here' (in my country a quick search suggests same exists, but needs a warrant from a magistrate, and there's no DEA for that weird twist) but the article just seems to be painting it in the most bizarre obviously wrong light possible.
The real problem is that law enforcement has a fairly good chance of getting a big chunk of money, and your odds of litigating successfully without those funds are low.
That's the fundamental problem. Fix legalized theft by law enforcement. The rest will sort itself out.
There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one.
None of these things are mutually exclusive.
If it’s not evidence of the crime they’re charging you with, they need to keep their hands off.
This implies (to me) that this case is less abusive than others. I don't agree.
> Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy.
What I said is "There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one."
The adjective "abusive" applies to the noun "civil forfeiture." The adjective "better" applies to the noun "examples." This is how standard English syntax works. Adjectives are taken as applying to the nearest noun following them.
To me that implies that this is less abusive than other cases. I don't agree.
> How is it not abusive regardless? Doing something "stupid" is not a crime.
You both transparently agree that it is abusive regardless and that doing something stupid is not a crime.
The whole point is that because it's badly mutilated, an individual citizen quietly driving their car has no particular reason to deeply understand the relevant jurisprudence when a cop asks them to do something, and is heavily incentivized to say "Okay" and find a lawyer later. That's why, for instance, the Miranda warning is a thing - you have the right to remain silent even if you're not told it, it's right there in the Fifth Amendment, but people don't know that. (And even so, it turns out you have to specifically say that you're invoking the right to remain silent, you can't just remain silent.)
“probable cause” is of a crime; possession of cash is not a crime.
Second, I'm not saying that possession of cash is a crime, I'm saying it might be probable cause of some other crime, such as dealing drugs or whatever.
Where the Statutes are nice and all, but it's the case law that makes up the majority of the iceberg. You can legally construct an argument with the right cherry picking to justify anything, and the court won't give you time to in the moment read up to ensure that what your opponent claims even makes sense.
You may be getting downvote d for seeming unwilling to "read the link" but you have a 100% sound point.
The law isn't worth the paper it is written on until a judge makes a decision on that particular case, which will be heavily dependent on the arguments prosecution and defense both bring. Which all happens after your encounter with Law Enforcement.
However...
I do want to encourage you that the right you do not assert in the encounter with Law enforcement does not contribute at all to an effective defense. Most reasonability tests only weigh what is said in the exchange to the point where you must clearly and unambiguously use certain legal "magic words" to dispel any illusion of muddied waters for the courts.
Think of it as a protocol.
A cop can stop you. You must accept the interruption.
Hello officer, how are you?
If they ask if you know why they stopped you.
"No sir, but I'm sure you're about to let me know."
You must provide identification if requested.
They must provide a reason for stopping you.
If they ask for consent to search the vehicle, your answer is "No, I do not consent. Are we done here? Or is there more I can help you with Officer?"
They should either respond with: "You are free to go." End transaction.
Or,
They will assert some justification for further detaining you. If they assert the smell of alcohol or drugs, or a need to breathalyze you, you must consent in most jurisdictions. If you do not consent to be breathalyzed there, or suspect their equipment, you are entitled to be transported to a medical facility to do a drug test to confirm or dispute the result.
If you've done nothing wrong, and you've gotten this far you are now playing paperwork chicken with this cop. They have paperwork to fill out, and you do not. On the other hand, cops are largely immune to the pain of paperwork from doing it day in, day out. If you have a phone, I recommend letting somebody know things are getting interesting, so they can echo it to your social circle. Even employers will usually understand this type of thing can happen. You still do not consent to having your vehicle searched. You inform the officer you'd like to call someone to come pick up the vehicle. If your phone is in your pocket, you tell them that and make sure they understand what you are doing, or allow them to get out the phone from where it is stored if they strike you as twitchy. I'd recommend only doing that as a last resort. Try if at all possible to never leave your phone somewhere a cop can clearly access on your person, or observe there is not a weapon hidden ahead of time.
Note: Miranda doesn't have to happen until you are formally under arrest. Don't jump the gun. DUI isn't confirmed until the test results are in. It's a pain.
After all of this...
"Am I free to go?"
If yes, end transaction. If no, God help you, the fates do not smile upon you this day. You will have the makings of an excellent harassment case if this continues for more than 24 hours without them either formally charging you with something, or letting you go.
Contrary to popular belief, cops are people too, and likely have an aversion to having their time wasted. If you get a malicious one, then as scary as the prospect is, the system is still people'd by reasonable folks.
ACAB isn't necessarily a given, but they are not your ally. Ever. Dealing with them is one step closer to having your life ruined. So always stick to protocol.
Be courteous. Follow protocol. They must justify their actions in an Official capacity. Make it as easy for them to finish the process. If you get into a failure state, just do everything in your power to make sure someone else knows.
Of course, I’m only a citizen of the United States, not a gov’t official or attorney or judge. So naturally my plain reading of the Constitution and the writings surrounding its adoption are JustMyOpinion. Considering the government’s resources are far superior its best to kowtow to the government’s interpretation should one run afoul of such things and hope that due process will sort it out eventually.
However, I am aware that police officers can be very convincing that they're friendly guys on your side. And in this case, perhaps he was -- after all, the officer who initiated the stop argued against the civil forfeiture. Social conditioning is a heck of a thing.
His consent wasn't likely to be required. That consent is merely a superficial layer, easily discarded by staging dog alerting. If the guy didn't consent out of misplaced respect, he may have chosen to do so because he realized the cops can get in your car if they particularly want to no matter what you do. And once he mentioned the large amounts of cash, that was that.
Just because it's dumb or even "bizarre," does not make him any less of a victim.
It’s not surprising that some people would also choose to keep the money “safe” by keeping it with them when they travel.
The fact that it’s irrational is irrelevant. It’s quite common, and therefore this is a great example of abusive civil forfeiture. Corrupt cops have surely become aware that such behavior is commonplace. They’ve learned how to sniff out such victims and prey upon them.
I can’t think of a better example than this case.
[1]: https://slate.com/business/2015/02/keeping-cash-at-home-way-...
Try doing a stint in Fintech, and then get back to me once you realize how the number of ways for you to be deprived of access to your savings, and the nigh impossibility of finding out why or who to talk to to remedy the situation. Note how how account freezes only freeze withdrawals, and will allow continued deposits all day long. Note how no one will be straight up with you about compliance requirements, and in fact, how knoeledge of reporting requirements instantly elevates you in terms of compliance risk, possibly requiring a SAR to be filed out of an abundance of caution.
Once your money is in the financial system, you'd best plan on it being in adversarial hands. You are suspicious by default. If you use your money in ways the government deems unusual, they are obligated to report it to stay in business.
This is not paranoia. I know the implementation details of these policies and systems. It is, in fact, creepy as all hell. It makes me sick, and I don't even have anything to hide.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lar...
Leery of banks and traveling from one state to another, to visit family..."Stephen was driving from Texas to a small town near Reno to visit his two daughters." So, maybe not "habitually", but in certain circumstances.
Almost as if the Nevada State Patrol might watch for people they think are from an ethnic group that has a distrust of banks and has out of state plates.
So how does the FDIC help you when the bank says your deposit is $0? Banks are very capable of fucking up, be it bank accounts or loosing track of who owned which locker during mergers.
Haha, what a silly question...except the guy actually did have a large amount of United States currency in the vehicle. Either that cop is the world's luckiest guesser, or they had some reason to think he had a bunch of cash in his car.
If the DEA really didn't comply with it's legal obligations about returning the money/explaining though, I guess the guy has a pretty strong case to get it all back plus a bit extra.
Not sure why he couldn't just send the bank receipts he already showed the cop to the DEA or whatever. Principle?
I have a lot of questions about this story.
… or he asks everyone that he pulls over that question.
Have you heard of parallel construction? Perhaps he and his wife had discussed the cash in private messages.
> Not sure why he couldn't just send the bank receipts he already showed the cop to the DEA or whatever.
If he did this (and he may have done) why do you think they would give him his money back?
That's why I said they had some other reason to think he had cash.
> If he did this (and he may have done) why do you think they would give him his money back?
As the article explained, if he can provide evidence of how he came by the money legally, he gets it back. Otherwise the federal government is breaking the law, no?
Even on the face of it, that is a blatant violation of the presumption of innocence and it boggles the mind that this is deemed constitutional in the USA. Even the 90 day term is wildly unacceptable for taking someone's possessions without a clear cause - perhaps 90 minutes?