Cops and Cash Seizures (1 Viewer)

[BHM]

The article states he had no checking account or credit cards. Even if he had them he should have still been free to travel with cash if he desired. He wasn't carrying an unusual amount for business purchases and no wrongdoing could be shown at trial. The fact that he had to close his business after the police stole his business funds suggests that they were indeed business funds. The whole thing is a scam by police to generate extra revenue.

Seven, he owned a business that accepted visa and MC. He had to have a bank account or at the very least, he should have. Unless of course he was hiding cash. No it was not a large amount for business purchases but not many legit businesses should be making cash purchases.

Again, not saying he should have had his money taken away but it was a huge risk he was taking driving around with that much cash to begin with. But yes, I agree, it is too easy for a money strapped police department to generate a little extra money.

 

[BHM]

Yes, the main problem is that a "positive" from a K9 unit is probably cause for a search. Then, even if they don't find any drugs, if you have a "suspicious" amount of cash, they can seize it. And then its up to you to prove you weren't doing anything wrong and get it back. And as we covered sometime ago, K9 units generate an awful alot of false positives. Gross 4th amendment violation IMO, if not outright legalized robbery.



We shouldn't have to buy his story. The burden of proof is on the cops. "You are carrying a large amount of cash, therefore you must have gotten it doing something illegal?"

No, we do not have to buy his story. However, if I am going to get upset about, I need to feel confidant that it was not drug money and I have a sneaky suspicion it was. But that is just me as I see no legit reason a legit business owner would be tea doing across state lines to purchase equipment and supplies with cash.

 

[antipop]

"the police justified their seizure by claiming that Costello was unusually nervous"

yeah, because cops are known for giving a sense of comfort to people they pull over

 

[BHM]

this is crazy...it is not uncommon i am carrying a chunk of cash on me due to what i do for a living. No i am not a dealer .... I go to auctions and buy stuff too flip...well there is no auction house here that take credit cards, etc...it is a cash business. There are legitimate reasons for carry large sums of money and I should not have to be made to feel like a criminal for providing for my family legally.

You can get a bank letter of certification for checks that auction houses accept and most legit auction houses accept plastic as well. Curious as to what auction house would not accept plastic or bank letters.

 

[2009ring]

When my grandmother died, when her house sold I got around $25,000 as my share of the inheritance. After stopping at the lawyer's office to pick up the check, I went to the bank that the check was drawn on (the lawyer's bank) to cash it - if I had deposited it in my own bank, it would have been subject to a hold of at least a week. I had home improvements I wanted to get started on right away so I didn't want to wait.

I cashed the check at the bank, and drove about 5 miles to my own bank where I deposited the funds as cash so they would be immediately accessible. I have never been more nervous on a 5 mile drive through my hometown as I was that day.

 

[Severum]

Seven, he owned a business that accepted visa and MC. He had to have a bank account or at the very least, he should have. Unless of course he was hiding cash. No it was not a large amount for business purchases but not many legit businesses should be making cash purchases.

Again, not saying he should have had his money taken away but it was a huge risk he was taking driving around with that much cash to begin with. But yes, I agree, it is too easy for a money strapped police department to generate a little extra money.

This is an odd tangent when there's ample evidence of police misconduct in his case and many others.

Plenty of businesses make cash purchases and you can accept credit cards (if that information was accurate) without having a credit card or checking account. The number of northern VA businesses making cash purchases in DC is probably much greater than the number of drug runners doing the same. The police had no evidence that he was using the money for illicit purposes and the DA, who presumably looked into the check/credit card statement, couldn't prove it either. He went through a lengthy deposition and court trial where a jury ruled in his favor. The guy also lost his business after what he claimed were business funds were stolen. We know he did nothing wrong and there's plenty of evidence suggesting he didn't plan to do anything wrong.

 

[coldseat]

You can get a bank letter of certification for checks that auction houses accept and most legit auction houses accept plastic as well. Curious as to what auction house would not accept plastic or bank letters.

Look, I get what you're doing. You like police and want to protect them. But it is not an American citizen's burden to prove that he is innocent of a crime. The police should have no right at all to seize large sums of money from people they stop on the street because they seem "nervous". Either the person is in the act of committing a crime or he is not.

The fact that a person has large sums of money on them, in and of itself is not probable cause for any crime. And a citizen is not subject to and can not be forced to explain the reasons he's carrying that large sum of money to a policemen or anybody else. It is a citizens right to do as he pleases as long as he's not committing a crime.

The law that allows the police to seize money like this is unconstitutional and it needs to be struck down. Especially when fighting the seizures cost a citizen a kings ransom and he ends up losing all of that money anyway.

That fact that you or the police suspect that it's drug money does not matter. Either it is drug money and they have enough probable cause to honestly suspect that (i.e. like a lot of drugs in the car or many prior arrest for drug distrubtion) or it is not and they have to let the citizen go on his way and conduct his business as he sees fit.

It is and should be cut and dry, a clearly delineated line.

 

[Krewe of Clyde's]

There was a case here in MS a couple of weeks ago where an interstate interdiction team found roughly a million dollars hidden in a false compartment in or under the oil pan. A case like that makes you feel that the money is most likely not legit. I won't fuss about that one or others like it.

The ones I will fuss about are the ones that are similar to the one cited at the front of this thread. There are multiple reasons for someone to have in their possession what a policeman might categorize as a "large" amount of cash. Heck, I can even give two personal examples that might have put me in jeopardy of having my cash confiscated. I owned a bar for 27 years. It was out in the country and we did not take credit cards or debit cards. We only grudgingly took checks and we had to know you to do that. So most of our nightly take was going to be in cash. It wasn't a big deal to accumulate 10K or so in cash over a weekend. I kept that money in a safe/stong box in the trunk of my car. I also like going to the casinos. There have been multiple trips where I might have over 5K with me. Hopefully, my valid explanations of where that money came from and why it was in my possession would suffice but there is no guarantee about it.

The burden should be on the police to establish with a much greater degree of certainty that the money in question has a connection with unlawful activities than is currently required before confiscating it. There is no justification for taking an American citizens cash merely on suspicion with no other supporting evidence.

If you have any problem believing that this is a wide-spread problem, then just drive a couple of hundred miles on I-10 or I-20 and count the number of interdiction units sitting on the side of the highway. On the bright side, these interdiction units could not care less about your speeding. I rarely even knock my cruise off when I spot one.

 

[BHM]

Look, I get what you're doing. You like police and want to protect them. But it is not an American citizen's burden to prove that he is innocent of a crime. The police should have no right at all to seize large sums of money from people they stop on the street because they seem "nervous". Either the person is in the act of committing a crime or he is not.

The fact that a person has large sums of money on them, in and of itself is not probable cause for any crime. And a citizen is not subject to and can not be forced to explain the reasons he's carrying that large sum of money to a policemen or anybody else. It is a citizens right to do as he pleases as long as he's not committing a crime.

The law that allows the police to seize money like this is unconstitutional and it needs to be struck down. Especially when fighting the seizures causes a citizen a kings ransom and he ends up losing all of that money anyway.

That fact that you or the police suspect that it's drug money does not matter. Either it is drug money and they have enough probable cause to honestly suspect that (i.e. like a lot of drugs in the car or many prior arrest for drug distrubtion) or it is not and they have to let the citizen go on his way and conduct his business as he sees fit.

It is and should be cut and dry, a clearly delineated line.

I do not disagree for the record. I just think driving across state lines with a large sum of cash is asking for trouble.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Can the guy who lost his business sue the cops?

The article states that several have sued to get the back and that legal fees ate up most of the money anyway.

Why wouldn't the police be on the hook for those fees too? It seems tome that if it's proven that they kept the money for no good reason, that they should have to pay back the full amount taken plus interest for how long they had it (I think the article said one guy took 18 months to get his money back), plus legal fees and I wouldn't be opposed to some punitive amount also for "pain & suffering or hardship"

So all that to ask the lawyers on the board why weren't the legal fees part of the reimbursement?

 

[Saintamaniac]

I do not disagree for the record. I just think driving across state lines with a large sum of cash is asking for trouble.

So essentially, you think that breaking no laws while crossing state lines is asking for trouble.

 

[tjharris]

Some of the worst criminals have badges. The only defense for things like this is knowledge. If you know the law and call cops out whenever they step on your rights they generally run the other way, because they think they will be sued

 

[Saintamaniac]

Some of the worst criminals have badges. The only defense for things like this is knowledge. If you know the law and call cops out whenever they step on your rights they generally run the other way, because they think they will be sued

That is unless you are a large man and they claim they feared for their life and shoot you several times.

 

[BHM]

So essentially, you think that breaking no laws while crossing state lines is asking for trouble.

If that is how you wish to spin it. As I stated twice already, he could have been robbed or in an accident or what ever. There are very few legit reasons why one would HAVE to carry CASH across state lines. It is therefore my opinion that in doing so, you are asking from trouble.

 

[coldseat]

If that is how you wish to spin it. As I stated twice already, he could have been robbed or in an accident or what ever. There are very few legit reasons why one would HAVE to carry CASH across state lines. It is therefore my opinion that in doing so, you are asking from trouble.

He was robbed, by the police. So I guess in that sense, you're absolutely correct.