21–30 of 156 posts
This raises a question: why carry that much cash with you? Two things can be true at the same time: cops should not be seizing cash from folks on the side of the road without clear evidence of a crime, and it looks shady as hell if you are traveling with $18k in the backseat of your car.
It said as much in the article.
This raises a question: why carry that much cash with you? Two things can be true at the same time: cops should not be seizing cash from folks on the side of the road without clear evidence of a crime, and it looks shady as hell if you are traveling with $18k in the backseat of your car.
I fail to see a difference aside from shared willingness to for random state actors to play along with that shared desire.
This raises a question: why carry that much cash with you? Two things can be true at the same time: cops should not be seizing cash from folks on the side of the road without clear evidence of a crime, and it looks shady as hell if you are traveling with $18k in the backseat of your car.
Because I am a citizen of this allegedly free country and I just might want to!
Surely it wouldn't be illegal in any EU country that I know of (but in some countries there's a maximum allowed amount of cash you can use in any single transaction, something between EUR 1000 and 3000), but just any law enforcement would find such an amount of cash suspicious, and probably trigger an investigation.
Drive through this county everyday. The tricks they got up their sleeve are impressive if you don’t have a local plate. RIP to Illinois and Cali plates. ETA: Yes, everyday you drive through this county you will see cops searching vehicles (usually out of state plates, CO/CA/IL the most obvious). Almost feel bad for legit people driving through I80 with out of state plates, but the's what happens when you have a low p…
This raises a question: why carry that much cash with you? Two things can be true at the same time: cops should not be seizing cash from folks on the side of the road without clear evidence of a crime, and it looks shady as hell if you are traveling with $18k in the backseat of your car.
I just redid my deck and fence. I paid Time+Materials. Guy brought me the materials and the receipts, I paid cash for the materials upfront. That was $35k in materials, in several $10k chunks. This happens all the time in the real world. The guy does several jobs at a time. My wife was concerned about us having that much cash in our safe. This contractor is doing it all the time probbably 5x that amount and it's all legal.
Bought several cars over the years, in cash. Why would I do a cashieres check? Who would take it except where a bank instantly validates it. Did the title transfer at the dmv, seller got cash so knew he wasn't getting screwed, DMV moved the title right there and validates it all so I knew I wasn't getting screwed. Those were $~15k each. Motorcycle? $8k cash.
Haven’t we been hearing about the horrors of civil asset forfeiture for more than a decade? Why is this still happening? Is there any sizeable constituency for this? Does anyone think this is a good idea, other than the corrupt law enforcement officers who are benefiting?
>The 2016 law was designed to require a criminal conviction before the state could seize money, according to the bill’s statement of intent.
>But the Legislature left two loopholes. Seizures over $25,000 could circumvent state law entirely by being adopted into federal court.
>And law enforcement could still seize assets under state law if evidence connected the cash to drugs – even if there are no drugs in the car.
Because law enforcement is determined to steal people's money.
Haven’t we been hearing about the horrors of civil asset forfeiture for more than a decade? Why is this still happening? Is there any sizeable constituency for this? Does anyone think this is a good idea, other than the corrupt law enforcement officers who are benefiting?
Because nationally its been upheld as constitutional and would require a constitutional amendment.
This interpretation of the sixth amendment isn't open to other interpretations. Specifically that civil cases are different than criminal cases, so they civilly charge the asset itself and the not the human being. Whoops.
Subsequently, some states started changing their own laws to stop the practice in their state, including the state in this article but it didn't work.
Obviously if they started seizing bank branches under probably cause of criminal activity, it would change overnight, but nobody wants a real challenge so they don't.
As someone not from the US I thought John Oliver did a great job of explaining Civil Forfeiture a few years back https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks