Cops steal 360k from person's car

[R.C. Christian]

Who in his right mind keeps $360,000 in a car?

Frankly, that much in hard cash, he was hiding something from someone.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Sound familiar?

There is nothing illegal about carrying a large sum of cash

Yawn, guy. He was obviously a drug dealer or something worse, but you guys who think Janet Napaletano is hiding in your closet are rushing to his defense.

"How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?" - Andy Dufrain

 

[Cookie]

Skull Pilot continue to assert that there is no law against walking around with cash. Sadly, that isn't true. Having large amounts of cash - defined as $100 or more - IS considered suspicious activity and it can be seized even if you haven't done anything wrong. People use cash for all sorts of purchases. For instance, I used to work at trade shows where people bought many products in cash. The vendor ends up with lots of cash on-hand but, because they are traveling between states, can't deposit that cash in their regular bank account. I personally have carried thousands in cash when returning from a trade show.

Here is some legal background:

Forfeiture takes two distinct forms -- criminal and civil. Nearly all contemporary forfeiture involves the civil variety. Criminal forfeiture operates as punishment for a crime. It, therefore, requires a conviction, following which the state takes the assets in question from the criminal. Civil forfeiture rests on the idea (a legal fiction) that the property itself, not the owner, has violated the law. Thus, the proceeding is directed against the res, or the thing involved in some illegal activity specified by statute. Unlike criminal forfeiture, in rem forfeiture does not require a conviction or even an official criminal charge against the owner. This is the source of its attractiveness to law enforcement, and its threat to those concerned about abuse or circumvention of Constitutional protections.

Categories of Property Subject to Forfeiture--Bennis v. Michigan 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) (Stevens, J., dissenting)

1. Contraband

Property for which ownership by itself constitutes a crime, including smuggled goods, narcotics, and automatic weapons. The government's mandate in protecting the public forms the justification for seizure in this case.

2. Proceeds from Illegal Activity

Property directly resulting from, or that can be traced to, an illegal activity. Once a crime is identified, the government may seize any property flowing from the activity. In some cases, the government may seize property in lieu of provable criminal proceeds. Statutory innocent owner defenses provide a check on the seizure power, although this burden lies with the owner, not the government.

3. Tools or Instrumentalities Used in Commission of a Crime

Property used in the commission of a crime, including vehicles and real estate. By being associated with the crime, the property is "guilty" of the offense, and subject to seizure. In some cases, the innocence of the owner may not be a defense, although Constitution limitations, such as the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, may apply.

LII Backgrounder on Forfeiture

 

[National Socialist]

Hell I get all my money out of the bank the second its put in there...don't trust banks but wife's job FORCES its employees to have a bank account so...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who in his right mind keeps $360,000 in a car?

Frankly, that much in hard cash, he was hiding something from someone.

Is he supposed to keep it in one of those banks that got bailed out?

Um. Yeah. That was the purpose of a bailout, so people didn't lose their savings.

No it wasn't. Savings accounts are insured by the FDIC, the purpose of the bailout was to protect rich people from going broke.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who in his right mind keeps $360,000 in a car?

Frankly, that much in hard cash, he was hiding something from someone.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Sound familiar?

There is nothing illegal about carrying a large sum of cash

Yawn, guy. He was obviously a drug dealer or something worse, but you guys who think Janet Napaletano is hiding in your closet are rushing to his defense.

"It's obvious" is not a good enough reason for the government to get away with something. If it was it would be obvious you are a murderer, and they could strap you down and fill you up with drugs, all without the bothersome expense of a trial.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yawn, guy. He was obviously a drug dealer or something worse, but you guys who think Janet Napaletano is hiding in your closet are rushing to his defense.

the o mm of obvious thing the guy was was a guy with some cash.

Everything else is your assumption

Can one not be pulled over if one is acting suspiciously?

Having $360,000 in cash in your car is certainly suspicious. I know a lot of rich people. I'd suspect most of them don't carry around $360, let alone $360,000. Most people who would do so would most likely be linked to criminal activity.

Maybe he did nothing wrong, I don't know. But it certainly is suspicious.

They could tell he had $360,000 in his car from the way he was driving?

The way it is supposed to work is they have to charge you, take you to trial, and find you guilty. What are they going to charge him with here? Is there a new law that makes having cash on hand illegal? What is the cutoff point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can one not be pulled over if one is acting suspiciously?

Having $360,000 in cash in your car is certainly suspicious. I know a lot of rich people. I'd suspect most of them don't carry around $360, let alone $360,000. Most people who would do so would most likely be linked to criminal activity.

Maybe he did nothing wrong, I don't know. But it certainly is suspicious.

Suspicion is subjective.

Sure. But I think most people would be suspicious of a guy driving around with $360,000 in cash. Legitimate business people generally don't do that.

Even if they just sold a brand new boat to a paranoid recluse who never uses banks?

 

[R.C. Christian]

This has been going on for years. This is not new news. They don't have to prove anything, they just take it.

 

[Toro]

Suspicion is subjective.

Sure. But I think most people would be suspicious of a guy driving around with $360,000 in cash. Legitimate business people generally don't do that.

Even if they just sold a brand new boat to a paranoid recluse who never uses banks?

Yes.

You could make up hypotheticals all day but it is extremely rare that someone legitimate would be driving around with a car full of money. Criminals, not legitimate business people, deal in large amounts of cash. That's why he is suspicious. He may not be guilty of anything, but most times, someone driving around with large amounts of money like that are involved in crime.

 

[Toro]

the o mm of obvious thing the guy was was a guy with some cash.

Everything else is your assumption

Can one not be pulled over if one is acting suspiciously?

Having $360,000 in cash in your car is certainly suspicious. I know a lot of rich people. I'd suspect most of them don't carry around $360, let alone $360,000. Most people who would do so would most likely be linked to criminal activity.

Maybe he did nothing wrong, I don't know. But it certainly is suspicious.

They could tell he had $360,000 in his car from the way he was driving?

The way it is supposed to work is they have to charge you, take you to trial, and find you guilty. What are they going to charge him with here? Is there a new law that makes having cash on hand illegal? What is the cutoff point?

He wasn't pulled over because he was driving around with a lot of money. He was pulled over during a routine traffic stop. Then they found the money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure. But I think most people would be suspicious of a guy driving around with $360,000 in cash. Legitimate business people generally don't do that.

Even if they just sold a brand new boat to a paranoid recluse who never uses banks?

Yes.

You could make up hypotheticals all day but it is extremely rare that someone legitimate would be driving around with a car full of money. Criminals, not legitimate business people, deal in large amounts of cash. That's why he is suspicious. He may not be guilty of anything, but most times, someone driving around with large amounts of money like that are involved in crime.

Doesn't matter, unless the government can prove he is guilty he should be able to keep it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can one not be pulled over if one is acting suspiciously?

Having $360,000 in cash in your car is certainly suspicious. I know a lot of rich people. I'd suspect most of them don't carry around $360, let alone $360,000. Most people who would do so would most likely be linked to criminal activity.

Maybe he did nothing wrong, I don't know. But it certainly is suspicious.

They could tell he had $360,000 in his car from the way he was driving?

The way it is supposed to work is they have to charge you, take you to trial, and find you guilty. What are they going to charge him with here? Is there a new law that makes having cash on hand illegal? What is the cutoff point?

He wasn't pulled over because he was driving around with a lot of money. He was pulled over during a routine traffic stop. Then they found the money.

Why did they search the car?

 

[Toro]

Doesn't matter, unless the government can prove he is guilty he should be able to keep it.

I agree.

Why did they search the car?

I don't know.

 

[National Socialist]

They had suspicions he was carrying something..gonna go out on a limb here and say he was black....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Can one not be pulled over if one is acting suspiciously?

Having $360,000 in cash in your car is certainly suspicious. I know a lot of rich people. I'd suspect most of them don't carry around $360, let alone $360,000. Most people who would do so would most likely be linked to criminal activity.

Maybe he did nothing wrong, I don't know. But it certainly is suspicious.

Suspicion is subjective.

Sure. But I think most people would be suspicious of a guy driving around with $360,000 in cash. Legitimate business people generally don't do that.

It doesn't matter. Carrying cash is not a crime and is not a reason to stop, detain or search anyone.

 

[Toro]

It doesn't matter. Carrying cash is not a crime and is not a reason to stop, detain or search anyone.

If an activity is generally associated with crime, then I think it is a reason for the police to at least question why that person is engaging in that activity.

Police do that all the time.

 

[Toro]

They had suspicions he was carrying something..gonna go out on a limb here and say he was black....

The article said that it was a "routine traffic stop." I don't know what that means exactly. Maybe you're right. Maybe the "routine traffic stop" wasn't necessary or routine at all.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sure. But I think most people would be suspicious of a guy driving around with $360,000 in cash. Legitimate business people generally don't do that.

Even if they just sold a brand new boat to a paranoid recluse who never uses banks?

Yes.

You could make up hypotheticals all day but it is extremely rare that someone legitimate would be driving around with a car full of money. Criminals, not legitimate business people, deal in large amounts of cash. That's why he is suspicious. He may not be guilty of anything, but most times, someone driving around with large amounts of money like that are involved in crime.

When he was out of the area, my uncle's boss ALWAYS carried a roll of cash on him...often $50,000+ (and this was 30 years ago). He owned a trucking company, and if buying used equipment, cash talks!

 

[R.C. Christian]

They could tell he had $360,000 in his car from the way he was driving?

The way it is supposed to work is they have to charge you, take you to trial, and find you guilty. What are they going to charge him with here? Is there a new law that makes having cash on hand illegal? What is the cutoff point?

He wasn't pulled over because he was driving around with a lot of money. He was pulled over during a routine traffic stop. Then they found the money.

Why did they search the car?

Because he was stupid enough to allow them to.

 

[Jarlaxle]

he deserves to lose the money. Anybody THAT STUPID deserves whatever happens to him.