Couple has $107k stolen by cops.

[WinterBorn]

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.

I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.

I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.

If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Why? Why should a citizen be forced to prove he is innocent?

Because illegal drug sales are illegal.

Great, then charge them or give the money back.

Or do you prefer to grovel and ask the gov't how much cash you are allowed to carry.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.

I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.

If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Why? Why should a citizen be forced to prove he is innocent?

I thought you said they hadn't been charged with anything.

They haven't. But their assets were seized. And Iceweasel thinks that is ok because of what he thinks they MIGHT have been doing.

Wrong, asshole. Iceweasel wasn't there in in the court room. I didn't make the determination, you completely misrepresented the case.

You made it sound like a cop can pull you over, go through your shit for no good reason, take whatever money they find and call it a day. That isn't what happened and you continuously ignore the feds were acting in accordance to the law. It's been in court. And you don't get to decide what is legal or not.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.

If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Why? Why should a citizen be forced to prove he is innocent?

I thought you said they hadn't been charged with anything.

They haven't. But their assets were seized. And Iceweasel thinks that is ok because of what he thinks they MIGHT have been doing.

Wrong, asshole. Iceweasel wasn't there in in the court room. I didn't make the determination, you completely misrepresented the case.

You made it sound like a cop can pull you over, go through your shit for no good reason, take whatever money they find and call it a day. That isn't what happened and you continuously ignore the feds were acting in accordance to the law. It's been in court. And you don't get to decide what is legal or not.

I made it sound like a cop can pull you over, and if they find a large amount of cash in your car, they can TAKE IT, and you have to prove your innocence. And whether you are EVER charged with a crime or not, they can keep the money.

If you find that acceptable, you have no right to ever bitch about intrusive gov't.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.

I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.

If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Why? Why should a citizen be forced to prove he is innocent?

Because illegal drug sales are illegal.

Great, then charge them or give the money back.

Or do you prefer to grovel and ask the gov't how much cash you are allowed to carry.

I prefer not to make drug deals. Or look the other way when a dealer gets caught. Go argue the case before the Supreme Court, you could be famous!

 

[Claudette]

Who the hell carries over 100K in a bag??

I've never heard of anyone doing that unless they are drug dealers.

 

[Iceweasel]

If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

Why? Why should a citizen be forced to prove he is innocent?

I thought you said they hadn't been charged with anything.

They haven't. But their assets were seized. And Iceweasel thinks that is ok because of what he thinks they MIGHT have been doing.

Wrong, asshole. Iceweasel wasn't there in in the court room. I didn't make the determination, you completely misrepresented the case.

You made it sound like a cop can pull you over, go through your shit for no good reason, take whatever money they find and call it a day. That isn't what happened and you continuously ignore the feds were acting in accordance to the law. It's been in court. And you don't get to decide what is legal or not.

I made it sound like a cop can pull you over, and if they find a large amount of cash in your car, they can TAKE IT, and you have to prove your innocence. And whether you are EVER charged with a crime or not, they can keep the money.

If you find that acceptable, you have no right to ever bitch about intrusive gov't.

That isn't what happened, you're lying. Leaving out pertinent facts is lying.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why? Why should a citizen be forced to prove he is innocent?

I thought you said they hadn't been charged with anything.

They haven't. But their assets were seized. And Iceweasel thinks that is ok because of what he thinks they MIGHT have been doing.

Wrong, asshole. Iceweasel wasn't there in in the court room. I didn't make the determination, you completely misrepresented the case.

You made it sound like a cop can pull you over, go through your shit for no good reason, take whatever money they find and call it a day. That isn't what happened and you continuously ignore the feds were acting in accordance to the law. It's been in court. And you don't get to decide what is legal or not.

I made it sound like a cop can pull you over, and if they find a large amount of cash in your car, they can TAKE IT, and you have to prove your innocence. And whether you are EVER charged with a crime or not, they can keep the money.

If you find that acceptable, you have no right to ever bitch about intrusive gov't.

That isn't what happened, you're lying. Leaving out pertinent facts is lying.

The facts are simple. This couple was NEVER charged with a crime. This couple had $107k taken from them.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

While I dont care for this type of seizures I understand the cops view on them.
Nobody carries around that much cash unless it's ill gotten.
If it was a matter of moving cash why wouldnt you just wire the money?
Because it would get flagged by the bank for closer scrutiny thats why.

I have no doubt that this was drug money and since they found a scale and other evidence indicating it was ill gotten I gotta go with the cops on this one.

Had they found absolutely no evidence of drug dealing than I'd have to side with the complainant.

 

[Iceweasel]

I thought you said they hadn't been charged with anything.

They haven't. But their assets were seized. And Iceweasel thinks that is ok because of what he thinks they MIGHT have been doing.

Wrong, asshole. Iceweasel wasn't there in in the court room. I didn't make the determination, you completely misrepresented the case.

You made it sound like a cop can pull you over, go through your shit for no good reason, take whatever money they find and call it a day. That isn't what happened and you continuously ignore the feds were acting in accordance to the law. It's been in court. And you don't get to decide what is legal or not.

I made it sound like a cop can pull you over, and if they find a large amount of cash in your car, they can TAKE IT, and you have to prove your innocence. And whether you are EVER charged with a crime or not, they can keep the money.

If you find that acceptable, you have no right to ever bitch about intrusive gov't.

That isn't what happened, you're lying. Leaving out pertinent facts is lying.

The facts are simple. This couple was NEVER charged with a crime. This couple had $107k taken from them.

You mean that's all you are willing to see.

 

[WinterBorn]

They haven't. But their assets were seized. And Iceweasel thinks that is ok because of what he thinks they MIGHT have been doing.

Wrong, asshole. Iceweasel wasn't there in in the court room. I didn't make the determination, you completely misrepresented the case.

You made it sound like a cop can pull you over, go through your shit for no good reason, take whatever money they find and call it a day. That isn't what happened and you continuously ignore the feds were acting in accordance to the law. It's been in court. And you don't get to decide what is legal or not.

I made it sound like a cop can pull you over, and if they find a large amount of cash in your car, they can TAKE IT, and you have to prove your innocence. And whether you are EVER charged with a crime or not, they can keep the money.

If you find that acceptable, you have no right to ever bitch about intrusive gov't.

That isn't what happened, you're lying. Leaving out pertinent facts is lying.

The facts are simple. This couple was NEVER charged with a crime. This couple had $107k taken from them.

You mean that's all you are willing to see.

No, I am willing to see anything accurate. What I am not willing to do is have the gov't seize assets based on a crime that has not happened.

I dislike financing cars. I prefer to save the money and pay cash. By doing that I increase what I can buy, since I am not paying interest. I also get much better deals when I pay cash.

Should they be able to seize my cash if they find me with $15k or $20k?

 

[Claudette]

The couple can always get a lawyer. I'm sure that a court would get them their money back.

Any idea why they haven't done so???

 

[Iceweasel]

No, I am willing to see anything accurate. What I am not willing to do is have the gov't seize assets based on a crime that has not happened.

I dislike financing cars. I prefer to save the money and pay cash. By doing that I increase what I can buy, since I am not paying interest. I also get much better deals when I pay cash.

Should they be able to seize my cash if they find me with $15k or $20k?

Is that similar to what happened? No. If you are "going to buy a car" with hidden compartments in your car, scales, pot smell in a bag of over 100k in cash and can't explain demonstrate where it came from and the car dealer doesn't have anything worth over 10k on his lot, then you may have a problem.

 

[martybegan]

The couple can always get a lawyer. I'm sure that a court would get them their money back.

Any idea why they haven't done so???

They have been in litigation for years.

 

[Iceweasel]

The couple can always get a lawyer. I'm sure that a court would get them their money back.

Any idea why they haven't done so???

It's been in court. Their story didn't add up.

 

[martybegan]

No, I am willing to see anything accurate. What I am not willing to do is have the gov't seize assets based on a crime that has not happened.

I dislike financing cars. I prefer to save the money and pay cash. By doing that I increase what I can buy, since I am not paying interest. I also get much better deals when I pay cash.

Should they be able to seize my cash if they find me with $15k or $20k?

Is that similar to what happened? No. If you are "going to buy a car" with hidden compartments in your car, scales, pot smell in a bag of over 100k in cash and can't explain demonstrate where it came from and the car dealer doesn't have anything worth over 10k on his lot, then you may have a problem.

But our system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Here the situation is guilty until your prove innocence.

Civil asset forfeiture should only happen AFTER a criminal conviction, not in lieu of it.

 

[Bonzi]

If the cop was within the law - he's allowed to do it.
If you don't like the laws, complain, protest and work to get it changed.

 

[Weatherman2020]

This couple get pulled over for speeding. The cops find over $107k in a suitcase and her purse. The cops seize the money. No drugs are found and no charges are ever made. But the couple loses the money?

WTH?? How do we allow this? This is pure theft.

Cops Seized Over $107,000 From Couple, Didn’t Charge Them With a Crime - Institute for Justice

The left whine about big business being the biggest thing to fear. Businesses can't pull me over and take my money without a trial, they can't revoke my passport with a simple accusation, they can't take my home without being convicted of a crime.
But big government can and does do those things in America.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, I am willing to see anything accurate. What I am not willing to do is have the gov't seize assets based on a crime that has not happened.

I dislike financing cars. I prefer to save the money and pay cash. By doing that I increase what I can buy, since I am not paying interest. I also get much better deals when I pay cash.

Should they be able to seize my cash if they find me with $15k or $20k?

Is that similar to what happened? No. If you are "going to buy a car" with hidden compartments in your car, scales, pot smell in a bag of over 100k in cash and can't explain demonstrate where it came from and the car dealer doesn't have anything worth over 10k on his lot, then you may have a problem.

But our system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Here the situation is guilty until your prove innocence.

Civil asset forfeiture should only happen AFTER a criminal conviction, not in lieu of it.

If they discover a terrorist planning to blow people up and have the circumstantial evidence they don't need to sit back and wait for it.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I am willing to see anything accurate. What I am not willing to do is have the gov't seize assets based on a crime that has not happened.

I dislike financing cars. I prefer to save the money and pay cash. By doing that I increase what I can buy, since I am not paying interest. I also get much better deals when I pay cash.

Should they be able to seize my cash if they find me with $15k or $20k?

Is that similar to what happened? No. If you are "going to buy a car" with hidden compartments in your car, scales, pot smell in a bag of over 100k in cash and can't explain demonstrate where it came from and the car dealer doesn't have anything worth over 10k on his lot, then you may have a problem.

But our system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Here the situation is guilty until your prove innocence.

Civil asset forfeiture should only happen AFTER a criminal conviction, not in lieu of it.

If they discover a terrorist planning to blow people up and have the circumstantial evidence they don't need to sit back and wait for it.

They do have to have some sort of evidence to make an arrest. Having explosives is illegal.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, I am willing to see anything accurate. What I am not willing to do is have the gov't seize assets based on a crime that has not happened.

I dislike financing cars. I prefer to save the money and pay cash. By doing that I increase what I can buy, since I am not paying interest. I also get much better deals when I pay cash.

Should they be able to seize my cash if they find me with $15k or $20k?

Is that similar to what happened? No. If you are "going to buy a car" with hidden compartments in your car, scales, pot smell in a bag of over 100k in cash and can't explain demonstrate where it came from and the car dealer doesn't have anything worth over 10k on his lot, then you may have a problem.

But our system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Here the situation is guilty until your prove innocence.

Civil asset forfeiture should only happen AFTER a criminal conviction, not in lieu of it.

If they discover a terrorist planning to blow people up and have the circumstantial evidence they don't need to sit back and wait for it.

They do have to have some sort of evidence to make an arrest. Having explosives is illegal.

He may not have them yet. If they have evidence of a plan they don't need to wait.