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?