What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Seizures

Iamneone

New member
Not the epileptic kind, but the ones the police do.

Other than my introduction this is my first post. It's sort of intense in nature because it deals with law. I'm well aware that laws, for the most part, differ from state to state and then there are the federal laws. Some of us may encounter the state laws more often and then there are some of us who may have to deal with the big boys and the federal system. My question will probably involve both federal and state laws. More specifically, I am not so much concerned about U.S. borders and Customs, but rather laws and regulations within the U.S. Even more specifically, the laws, regulations and practices followed by regular cops (i.e., state & local narc cops).

But, before I go into my question I just want to put it out here that I am seriously looking for an answer and, therefore, don't want this thread to turn into a law enforcement bashing thread (i.e., the use of terms like "pigs" and stuff like that. I fully understand that we all have opinions and those opinions may be anti-police, but I'd rather stick to finding out the answer rather than this spinning off into something completely different.

Without further ado, onto my question. With regard to the seizure of money what gives the police the right/authority to seize my money that they find? Example, say for the sake of discussion that I am driving down the highway with a large amount of cash in my car (the term "large" is relative, so lets say I have $20,000) and I get pulled over. The police officer asks for consent to search my car and I say OK (again, this is just for argument/demonstrative purposes & most people would say don't give consent) or he has a K9 and he says the dog alerted on the car and he searches. During this search the cop finds the $20,000 and no other indication of drugs, paraphernalia or anything incriminating.

Obviously he's going to ask why I have the money and what it's for. If he says he doesn't believe my story of why I have it can he seize the money? I've read about this happening alot and also have heard stories personally from people who have had this happen to them.

I personally don't think this is right because merely having currency is not illegal, nor is it illegal to transport it. I mean it's kinda stupid to drive around with alot of cash, but sometimes if you're going to buy stuff you can't use a credit card :laughing:

What do you guys think? BTW, I warned y'all this was going to be an intense post. If this is my first post and it's this intense you can imagine how my future posts are gonna be once I get warmed up, so to speak. :)

Oh, a little disclaimer: I would never be involved in buying stuff that would involve large amounts of money. I'm just asking this question for a friend who's writing a paper for one of her college classes.
 

Maj.PotHead

End Cannibis Prohibition Now Realize Legalize !!
Mentor
Veteran
google search turned up mostly things like this

There is a lot of information on the subject that is privy to law enforcement for obvious reasons, but I will say this: when money is seized by law enforcement, (whether local, state, or federal), it is a civil forfeiture and the standard of proof is lesser than that of a criminal case. I have been involved in some currency seizures. Every single person who I have observed that had their money seized would (a) claim it wasn't theirs, (b) have no job, (c) not know (or pretend not to know) the person who gave them the money, and/or (d) have no issue with the money being taken.

Many who have never been in law enforcement read or see it on the news and assume LEOs are walking up to people and yanking it out of their purse/wallet with no provocation and no evidence to back it up. Although there are isolated cases out there of officers abusing this function, they are few and far between. I would say easily less than 1% of the money is wrongfully taken, which can be resolved in civil court (state or federal) when the person contests the seizure. It normally takes less than five minutes for officers trained in the issue to easily identify those who are legitimate versus those who are not. Normally there is information known before the person is even approached.

Bottom line, "yes" someone carrying a large amount of money can be suspicious, detained, and have their money seized. Could someone like you have it happen with a job, head on their shoulders, and documentation of your funds? No. Car dealers, bankers, and plain old farmers who don't trust banks carry large sums of cash every day with no problems from LE.





from sgt oinkoink on oinkoink.com
 

DonDon

Member
Not too long ago my best buddy got pulled over with a little less than 10 grams of bud on him... He is not a dealer just a smoker. The cop smelled the bud immediately, my buddy was very cooperative and told him he had about a qtr of personal marijuana on him. My buddy has a job where he has to carry large amounts of cash around. He had in the neighborhood of 40k on him. Obviously the cop asked about it. My buddy had proof inside his vehicle as to what he did for a living. The cops never freaked out or made it seem like they were going to confiscate the money. They verified what my friend said he did for a living, wrote him a ticket for the weed, and sent him on his way about 45 min later after going through the car completely to make sure he had no other contraband. I think the fact that it was all big bills (almost all 100s) and the fact he had some proof as to what he did for a living which is a job where you carry large sums of money, made it less suspicious. Obv no scales, bongs, pipes, or other paraphernalia
 

DonDon

Member
Don't get me wrong though, if you're rolling around with 20k in 5s, 10s, and 20s, with a few zips a scale and are unemployed with no reason to be carrying that kind of cash, kiss it good-bye
 
S

SeaMaiden

Search on this term--asset forfeiture. That's the legal basis on which this is all founded.
 

Iamneone

New member
Thank you everyone, especially Maj Pothead, for your replies.

DonDon, that's what I was referring to in my OP. If there is nothing else incriminating or illegal in the vehicle and just the currency do they have a right to snatch it?

Wendull, I'm pretty sure that it is not illegal to carry around any amount of money. I think what you are referring to is you have to report to the IRS any money transfers over $10K.

The bottom line that I'm having a problem with is the issue of the burden of proof. It seems as though the owner or possessor of the currency has the burden of proof shifted to him or her and away from the cops/courts to show that they possess the money legally and not with the intent to use it for, or have obtained it from, illegal reasons. Again, this is a complex legal issue, but as far as I know the police and legal system has the burden to prove that a person is guilty of a crime. It would appear that in this case, however, the person who had the money seized has the burden to show that they weren't doing anything wrong/illegal.

Whether or not the money had anything to do with an illegal act doesn't seem to be the issue for the police, but now it becomes your responsibility (and expense) to show that you had the money from legal reasons. I say this because in the links that some of you posted here and from others that I have found the individuals weren't charged with a crime. Actually, in one of the articles I found the author calls it Highway Robbery based on the police activity of Highway Interdiction.

I get the reasoning of why the police do this. I mean, realistically, you get a guy who is riding down the highway from Indiana to Texas with hundreds of thousands of dollars hidden in his car is probably not going to buy a house or car for cash and this is one way to fight the war on drugs (from a police point of view). I get that. It just raises questions.
 

Wendull C.

Active member
Veteran
Trust none of what you hear and half of what you see. You are very right man. I spoke without the proper knowledge and have been wrong for years, sorry man. Guess I don't have to make two or three trips any more when I sell a car.
 

DonDon

Member
Yea definitely not illegal to carry over 10k on you. If that was the case they would be nabbing people left and right in Vegas and just walking into poker rooms and sportsbooks arresting nearly everyone.

Iamneone is right if you are transferring over 10 you have to report it to the IRS. Also if you are flying internationally and I believe even domestically you must declare any cash over 10k.

I have another story. The person this happened to was a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend, etc. you get it. I personally did not know this guy but word quickly got around about the incident. Anyway this guy is super rich and plays A LOT of poker. He travels to Vegas frequently and all over the world playing poker. The guy obv carries a lot of cash.

He was at the airport flying to Vegas. I forgot where he was flying out of but it was domestic. Anyway dude was 5+ hours early for his flight. So he tries to get his flight changed so he doesn't have to wait. Lady told him he couldn't and all tickets are non-refundable. He asked if he could just buy another ticket instead and she said sure! It was about 800. He pulls out a wad probably about 10k and gives her 800.

Apparently this was extremely suspicious to the lady selling the ticket so she must have reported it to someone. About 20 min later after dude purchased ticket he was approached by some government agency I don't remember which one specifically, not DEA, maybe homeland security? One of the obscure alphabets and they searched and interrogated him. He told him what he did for a living and why he had the cash, showed them his Vegas ticket, and they still confiscated all the cash and told him he would need to prove it later that this was legitimate money obtained legally.

The details are a little foggy in my memory now this was years ago but I believe he had around 80k on him. The conclusion is he ended up getting his money back about 8 months or so later after a massive headache and some lawyer expenses.

So you never know, even if it is legitimate money I would still be very careful. You could be in for a major headache. I have to run but I will add more later if the thread continues. Interesting subject.
 
S

SeaMaiden

I believe the amounts regarding transfers, etc, aren't for the IRS, they're for Homeland Security. And, I also believe that the amount per day (deposits, transfers, etc) is throttled, either at that $10K mark, or lower (I honestly can't remember right now). But all of this new jive came about with PATRIOT and it's all tied to stopping terrorists. We were promised none of it would be used for drug interdiction, but that hasn't been the case. A lot of banking laws have changed post-PATRIOT.
 

FlowerFarmer

Well-known member
Veteran
The police do what they want.

When it comes to money to burden of proof is on you. You better be able to show that it was obtained through legitimate means.
Even so.. many times they'll make you fight for it through the legal system. It can sometimes be cost prohibitive to try to obtain your money back... and that is provided that they even acknowledge the full amount they took from you.

Locked briefcase and in the trunk of a vehicle. This eliminates SUVs, trucks, hatchbacks, etc. You want that shit in a clean vehicle, locked case, in a locked trunk.

..and as always. Never consent to a search of your vehicle. Ever.
 

Hydrosun

I love my life
Veteran
I believe the amounts regarding transfers, etc, aren't for the IRS, they're for Homeland Security. And, I also believe that the amount per day (deposits, transfers, etc) is throttled, either at that $10K mark, or lower (I honestly can't remember right now). But all of this new jive came about with PATRIOT and it's all tied to stopping terrorists. We were promised none of it would be used for drug interdiction, but that hasn't been the case. A lot of banking laws have changed post-PATRIOT.

Uh we are the terrorists, haven't they made that clear enough to all of us?

Time to stop using their shitty paper and carry 100oz silver bars or a 1,000oz bar. FWIIW a 10oz gold bar is smaller than a cell phone and worth over 15K.

FUCK the BANKS and their DEBT PAPER.

:joint:
 

Puffaluffagus

Member
Veteran
But, before I go into my question I just want to put it out here that I am seriously looking for an answer and, therefore, don't want this thread to turn into a law enforcement bashing thread (i.e., the use of terms like "pigs" and stuff like that. I fully understand that we all have opinions and those opinions may be anti-police, but I'd rather stick to finding out the answer rather than this spinning off into something completely different.

.
I have nothing to say about the question.
I just wanted to post a pic of some pigs chasing a pig
 

Puffaluffagus

Member
Veteran
pigs
 

Attachments

  • pigpig.jpg
    pigpig.jpg
    8.6 KB · Views: 10

Iamneone

New member
I guess I'm wrong but the last time I got nabbed in Mendocino county that is what the nice officer told me. I will check into it. Sorry for my confused answer man. Good luck, if I find out different I will chime in again with correct info and sources. Hope your college friend writes a good paper on this!

Hey, no problem dude. Thanks for the replies and information. It's what learning is all about. You share your information, I share my information, someone else shares their information and then we come up with the answers.

Thanks again to everyone for contributing to this thread. This is an interesting topic and the thread has become productive. Gotta run right now, but I'll be back this evening and will share some more info I have found.
 

ItsGrowTime

gets some
Veteran
Thank you everyone, especially Maj Pothead, for your replies.

DonDon, that's what I was referring to in my OP. If there is nothing else incriminating or illegal in the vehicle and just the currency do they have a right to snatch it?

Wendull, I'm pretty sure that it is not illegal to carry around any amount of money. I think what you are referring to is you have to report to the IRS any money transfers over $10K.

The bottom line that I'm having a problem with is the issue of the burden of proof. It seems as though the owner or possessor of the currency has the burden of proof shifted to him or her and away from the cops/courts to show that they possess the money legally and not with the intent to use it for, or have obtained it from, illegal reasons. Again, this is a complex legal issue, but as far as I know the police and legal system has the burden to prove that a person is guilty of a crime. It would appear that in this case, however, the person who had the money seized has the burden to show that they weren't doing anything wrong/illegal.

Whether or not the money had anything to do with an illegal act doesn't seem to be the issue for the police, but now it becomes your responsibility (and expense) to show that you had the money from legal reasons. I say this because in the links that some of you posted here and from others that I have found the individuals weren't charged with a crime. Actually, in one of the articles I found the author calls it Highway Robbery based on the police activity of Highway Interdiction.

I get the reasoning of why the police do this. I mean, realistically, you get a guy who is riding down the highway from Indiana to Texas with hundreds of thousands of dollars hidden in his car is probably not going to buy a house or car for cash and this is one way to fight the war on drugs (from a police point of view). I get that. It just raises questions.

What you're looking at is the difference between a civil case and a criminal case. The burden of proof is always on the complainant....the state. A civil case is what a forfeiture is and the burden of proof is only "preponderance of evidence" which means 51% in favor of state's case. Criminal cases have a different burden of proof called "reasonable doubt". That's more like 80% of guilt. I don't think any studies of this percentage difference have happened but you get the idea. That's the legal standard at play. All they have to do is convince a judge (who they probably play golf with) that 51% beats 49% and the loot is gone.
 
Top