There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one.
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.
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.
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.
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.