You would be rightly fucked for being an idiot. House burns down. Cash is stolen. Goodbye money.
All of those are fine reasons for it to go away. However, someone taking property because I can't provide a paper-trail is bullshit. Why is that okay?
Instead of a huge briefcase of cash it could easily be a different, extremely valuable item that has no paper trail. An heirloom for example, or something made by the person arrested. I agree with Bowen's argument on this issue.
Stuff like this gets my blood a' boiling. But that's probably just the seat warmer.
But we're comparing apples and oranges here in order to just be outraged. If it was a family heirloom or something someone made and the cop took it, yes, we would be rightly outraged because then it was most likely incorrect. But in the case of a quarter million dollars in cash stuffed into a briefcase, for which the person has no reasonable explanation for, the officer was probably justified in seizing it because odds are most likely that it was going to be used for purposes other than legal ones.
Seriously, if you found a briefcase full to the brim of money, would you think it would belong to a by-the-book business man? Of course not.
I hate doing this shit, but; If you bought alcohol and I thought you were going to sell it to a minor, just for being in possession of the alcohol, should I have the right to take it from you?
You can't just take shit because it could potentially be used illegally. For all you know he could be putting a down payment on a $10 million mansion. Granted, he wasn't able to justify it, but how many times have you come into contact with an police officer and in those times, how many have you been flabbergasted or just had a hard time talking?
We're getting third hand information, he could've said "I just got it from the bank" and the officer said, "do you have any receipts?" and he went, "no, I don't have them" and that transmogrified into, "He was unable to produce any receipts or give any other justification for why he had it." Maybe he did win it at a casino, and just threw away the receipts.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
If you won it at a casino and threw away the reciepts, it's easy enough to call the casino and have them verify it. Same with bank withdrawls. They all have paper trails on your end and the company's end to verify the money was moved and for tax purposes.
A suitcase of money and a very valuable item are fundamentally different in that one can be used to buy things, the other is far more difficult. I may have a painting worth $50, but I can't use it as currency when I buy lunch unless the waiter really likes my artwork.
Anyways, civil forfeiture is a stupid law, but saying you lost the paperwork on large sums of money is also stupid, since you can just call the place you got it from and have them pull up the record saying they gave it to you.
If you won it at a casino and threw away the reciepts, it's easy enough to call the casino and have them verify it. Same with bank withdrawls. They all have paper trails on your end and the company's end to verify the money was moved and for tax purposes.
A suitcase of money and a very valuable item are fundamentally different in that one can be used to buy things, the other is far more difficult. I may have a painting worth $50, but I can't use it as currency when I buy lunch unless the waiter really likes my artwork.
Anyways, civil forfeiture is a stupid law, but saying you lost the paperwork on large sums of money is also stupid, since you can just call the place you got it from and have them pull up the record saying they gave it to you.
Granted. But some people, quite a bit, don't use banks. One of my older relatives had an okay reason for not doing it, but he was alive during the Great Depression. If you carried around $1,000,000 with you, and you've never used a bank, what would you tell the officer?
The officer should have taken his plate, wrote him a ticket for speeding, and sent him on his way since that is the only crime he was guilty of. If he was in possession of 200 kilos of coke. Alright, then take the money. To know that any of my property is subject to theft because of an inconsequential misdemeanor is quite unsettling. It's not like the the meter maid can take my hubcaps because I parked illegally.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
If you won it at a casino and threw away the reciepts, it's easy enough to call the casino and have them verify it. Same with bank withdrawls. They all have paper trails on your end and the company's end to verify the money was moved and for tax purposes.
A suitcase of money and a very valuable item are fundamentally different in that one can be used to buy things, the other is far more difficult. I may have a painting worth $50, but I can't use it as currency when I buy lunch unless the waiter really likes my artwork.
Anyways, civil forfeiture is a stupid law, but saying you lost the paperwork on large sums of money is also stupid, since you can just call the place you got it from and have them pull up the record saying they gave it to you.
Granted. But some people, quite a bit, don't use banks. One of my older relatives had an okay reason for not doing it, but he was alive during the Great Depression. If you carried around $1,000,000 with you, and you've never used a bank, what would you tell the officer?
The officer should have taken his plate, wrote him a ticket for speeding, and sent him on his way since that is the only crime he was guilty of. If he was in possession of 200 kilos of coke. Alright, then take the money. To know that any of my property is subject to theft because of an inconsequential misdemeanor is quite unsettling. It's not like the the meter maid can take my hubcaps because I parked illegally
I don't really feel I have to know why he had the money. I don't think that's what the burden of proof should be. Like bowen keeps saying, the burden of proof should be on the officer to prove the money is being used illegally, not on the citizen to prove he has money for a legal reason. Maybe he just sold his old car at a car swap place and insisted on cash for obvious reasons. Maybe instead of winning the money at the casino he was going to place a sports bet that he and 9 of his friends had all pooled their money for. Maybe he etc. It doesn't matter. As long as its plausible - beyond a reasonable doubt - for him to have the money for legal reasons, then the officer should have to prove its being used for illegal activities.
If you don't use a bank and have a million bucks on you, I'd expect you to have a source for the money, even if it took years of pay stubs or whatnot (which are available from your work or your tax returns), and showing that you have no bank accounts in your name and just got it all cashed.
As for taking the items for a routine misdemeanor: If you get pulled over and happen to also have a visible other broken law with you, the cop will bust you for it. If I get pulled over and have, say, a handgun on the seat and no permit on me for it, they're probably going to take it (and bust me in that case, but hey). The rules against carrying around tons of cash are silly, though this isn't exactly civil forfeiture (which is taking your fucking couch), it's simply asking for proof that stupidly large amounts of hard cash being transported are legit. Mostly because there are very few reasons to have that much money on you. Sure, I could have $20,000 on hand to go buy a car, but that also assumes I'm finding a legit dealership that wants $20,000 in cash.
My basic point on the money though is that almost all cash has a paper trail, even if it's not on your end. If you have a ton of money with no paper trail on either end, I'll bet you someone's breaking the law (namely because with no records of the money, Someone's not paying taxes on it)
Edit: And I could have been saving for years, that doesn't mean I'm able to produce pay stubs for 10+ years worth of income. I doubt even an employer can do that (I think you're only legally required to keep 5 years worth at the most, don't quote me on that though).
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
If you won it at a casino and threw away the reciepts, it's easy enough to call the casino and have them verify it. Same with bank withdrawls. They all have paper trails on your end and the company's end to verify the money was moved and for tax purposes.
A suitcase of money and a very valuable item are fundamentally different in that one can be used to buy things, the other is far more difficult. I may have a painting worth $50, but I can't use it as currency when I buy lunch unless the waiter really likes my artwork.
Anyways, civil forfeiture is a stupid law, but saying you lost the paperwork on large sums of money is also stupid, since you can just call the place you got it from and have them pull up the record saying they gave it to you.
Granted. But some people, quite a bit, don't use banks. One of my older relatives had an okay reason for not doing it, but he was alive during the Great Depression. If you carried around $1,000,000 with you, and you've never used a bank, what would you tell the officer?
The officer should have taken his plate, wrote him a ticket for speeding, and sent him on his way since that is the only crime he was guilty of. If he was in possession of 200 kilos of coke. Alright, then take the money. To know that any of my property is subject to theft because of an inconsequential misdemeanor is quite unsettling. It's not like the the meter maid can take my hubcaps because I parked illegally
I don't really feel I have to know why he had the money. I don't think that's what the burden of proof should be. Like bowen keeps saying, the burden of proof should be on the officer to prove the money is being used illegally, not on the citizen to prove he has money for a legal reason. Maybe he just sold his old car at a car swap place and insisted on cash for obvious reasons. Maybe instead of winning the money at the casino he was going to place a sports bet that he and 9 of his friends had all pooled their money for. Maybe he etc. It doesn't matter. As long as its plausible - beyond a reasonable doubt - for him to have the money for legal reasons, then the officer should have to prove its being used for illegal activities.
He sold a car for $246,000? And got cash for it? Where do you GET $246,000 in cash? And you'd have a new owner of your car that just got the title transferred that you can get a hold of to prove it's legit.
In the case of large amounts of money (and the law really is LARGE amounts), with absolutely no paper trail to prove it's legally obtained. Because we're such a paper trail intense society that it's pretty trivial to prove money was moved (heck, in the case of the car, call person who gave you the cash, cops call HIS bank..)
If you won it at a casino and threw away the reciepts, it's easy enough to call the casino and have them verify it. Same with bank withdrawls. They all have paper trails on your end and the company's end to verify the money was moved and for tax purposes.
A suitcase of money and a very valuable item are fundamentally different in that one can be used to buy things, the other is far more difficult. I may have a painting worth $50, but I can't use it as currency when I buy lunch unless the waiter really likes my artwork.
Anyways, civil forfeiture is a stupid law, but saying you lost the paperwork on large sums of money is also stupid, since you can just call the place you got it from and have them pull up the record saying they gave it to you.
Granted. But some people, quite a bit, don't use banks. One of my older relatives had an okay reason for not doing it, but he was alive during the Great Depression. If you carried around $1,000,000 with you, and you've never used a bank, what would you tell the officer?
The officer should have taken his plate, wrote him a ticket for speeding, and sent him on his way since that is the only crime he was guilty of. If he was in possession of 200 kilos of coke. Alright, then take the money. To know that any of my property is subject to theft because of an inconsequential misdemeanor is quite unsettling. It's not like the the meter maid can take my hubcaps because I parked illegally
I don't really feel I have to know why he had the money. I don't think that's what the burden of proof should be. Like bowen keeps saying, the burden of proof should be on the officer to prove the money is being used illegally, not on the citizen to prove he has money for a legal reason. Maybe he just sold his old car at a car swap place and insisted on cash for obvious reasons. Maybe instead of winning the money at the casino he was going to place a sports bet that he and 9 of his friends had all pooled their money for. Maybe he etc. It doesn't matter. As long as its plausible - beyond a reasonable doubt - for him to have the money for legal reasons, then the officer should have to prove its being used for illegal activities.
He sold a car for $246,000? And got cash for it? Where do you GET $246,000 in cash? And you'd have a new owner of your car that just got the title transferred that you can get a hold of to prove it's legit.
In the case of large amounts of money (and the law really is LARGE amounts), with absolutely no paper trail to prove it's legally obtained. Because we're such a paper trail intense society that it's pretty trivial to prove money was moved (heck, in the case of the car, call person who gave you the cash, cops call HIS bank..)
That's a moot point. What law was broken to justify the money being taken?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Edit: And I could have been saving for years, that doesn't mean I'm able to produce pay stubs for 10+ years worth of income. I doubt even an employer can do that (I think you're only legally required to keep 5 years worth at the most, don't quote me on that though).
Stubs for 5 would prove you have a history of not depositing it in banks, which is all you need. To prove a pattern that would allow you to have it. The burden of proof is Really Low for both sides.
The law it's usually picked up on is an accusation of laundering, from what I see.
If you won it at a casino and threw away the reciepts, it's easy enough to call the casino and have them verify it. Same with bank withdrawls. They all have paper trails on your end and the company's end to verify the money was moved and for tax purposes.
A suitcase of money and a very valuable item are fundamentally different in that one can be used to buy things, the other is far more difficult. I may have a painting worth $50, but I can't use it as currency when I buy lunch unless the waiter really likes my artwork.
Anyways, civil forfeiture is a stupid law, but saying you lost the paperwork on large sums of money is also stupid, since you can just call the place you got it from and have them pull up the record saying they gave it to you.
Granted. But some people, quite a bit, don't use banks. One of my older relatives had an okay reason for not doing it, but he was alive during the Great Depression. If you carried around $1,000,000 with you, and you've never used a bank, what would you tell the officer?
The officer should have taken his plate, wrote him a ticket for speeding, and sent him on his way since that is the only crime he was guilty of. If he was in possession of 200 kilos of coke. Alright, then take the money. To know that any of my property is subject to theft because of an inconsequential misdemeanor is quite unsettling. It's not like the the meter maid can take my hubcaps because I parked illegally
I don't really feel I have to know why he had the money. I don't think that's what the burden of proof should be. Like bowen keeps saying, the burden of proof should be on the officer to prove the money is being used illegally, not on the citizen to prove he has money for a legal reason. Maybe he just sold his old car at a car swap place and insisted on cash for obvious reasons. Maybe instead of winning the money at the casino he was going to place a sports bet that he and 9 of his friends had all pooled their money for. Maybe he etc. It doesn't matter. As long as its plausible - beyond a reasonable doubt - for him to have the money for legal reasons, then the officer should have to prove its being used for illegal activities.
He sold a car for $246,000? And got cash for it? Where do you GET $246,000 in cash? And you'd have a new owner of your car that just got the title transferred that you can get a hold of to prove it's legit.
In the case of large amounts of money (and the law really is LARGE amounts), with absolutely no paper trail to prove it's legally obtained. Because we're such a paper trail intense society that it's pretty trivial to prove money was moved (heck, in the case of the car, call person who gave you the cash, cops call HIS bank..)
That's a moot point. What law was broken to justify the money being taken?
Aha, found it. It's an IRS rule for reporting over $10,000 in cash obtained in a single year from anyone. You're legally required to fill out a form, or it's subject to seizure until you prove it's legit.
Edit: And I could have been saving for years, that doesn't mean I'm able to produce pay stubs for 10+ years worth of income. I doubt even an employer can do that (I think you're only legally required to keep 5 years worth at the most, don't quote me on that though).
Stubs for 5 would prove you have a history of not depositing it in banks, which is all you need. To prove a pattern that would allow you to have it. The burden of proof is Really Low for both sides.
The law it's usually picked up on is an accusation of laundering, from what I see.
I don't see how you would be able to prove that without an investigation first. Let's move to smaller numbers, if I had $10,000 would you feel comfortable taking that? If so, why? If not, what makes it any different? He could easily be putting a down payment on a house with money he's been keeping. Maybe he worked outside the country and had all his bills turned into American cash before entering at a local bank that may not have the same burdern of proof that those in the US would have. I'd rather let someone get away with money laundering than just set a precedence with allowing people to take shit without reasonable doubt and an investigation.
$245,000 is not that much money. There are houses in California that need down payments for that. If it were $5,000,000+ I'd say you'd have a pretty sizable amount to assume laundering if they can't produce receipts.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It's not that much money in the form of purchasing expensive shit. It's a ton of CASH.
That's 2,460 $100 bills. In a case. You're trying to say walking around with that many bills is a perfectly normal thing to do with absolutely no paperwork proving you got that money anywhere?
kildy on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
$245,000 is not that much money. There are houses in California that need down payments for that. If it were $5,000,000+ I'd say you'd have a pretty sizable amount to assume laundering if they can't produce receipts.
245K is the average citizens annual salary for about eight years. It's a lot of fucking money to just be driving around with.
That's a moot point. What law was broken to justify the money being taken?
Aha, found it. It's an IRS rule for reporting over $10,000 in cash obtained in a single year from anyone. You're legally required to fill out a form, or it's subject to seizure until you prove it's legit.
So the law you're in violation of is... tax law.
Yeah but we don't know if it's from a singular event, and we also don't know if he already filed it (or will file it on his taxes). That just sounds like your run of the mill income tax law. If you make less than $10,000 you basically don't have to report it to IRS on your taxes. (EDIT: That's how I'm interpreting it anyways, link me the specific law)
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
$245,000 is not that much money. There are houses in California that need down payments for that. If it were $5,000,000+ I'd say you'd have a pretty sizable amount to assume laundering if they can't produce receipts.
245K is the average citizens annual salary for about eight years. It's a lot of fucking money to just be driving around with.
Okay, and maybe he's saved for 10. How do you prove you didn't put any money in a bank? There's a metric fuckton of banks. Why is this burden or poof on the guilty and not the one trying to charge a person with a crime?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
That's a moot point. What law was broken to justify the money being taken?
Aha, found it. It's an IRS rule for reporting over $10,000 in cash obtained in a single year from anyone. You're legally required to fill out a form, or it's subject to seizure until you prove it's legit.
So the law you're in violation of is... tax law.
Yeah but we don't know if it's from a singular event, and we also don't know if he already filed it (or will file it on his taxes). That just sounds like your run of the mill income tax law. If you make less than $10,000 you basically don't have to report it to IRS on your taxes.
It's actually a spin off of the gift tax rules. Because you have to declare and pay extra on anything over $10,000 (I think it's 11 now, but the form rule hasn't changed) from a single source, it's a violation of the law to have it in your possession without having filled out of a form with the IRS (or having proof that you've only had it for less than 15 days and were going to fill it out).
They can pick it up because a large amount of cash in hand (over $10,000) with no paper trail breaks the IRS's rules. The burden of proof is very low, and you can have it back when you prove it's legitimately yours (and have a paper trail the IRS can use to tax you on it).
$245,000 is not that much money. There are houses in California that need down payments for that. If it were $5,000,000+ I'd say you'd have a pretty sizable amount to assume laundering if they can't produce receipts.
245K is the average citizens annual salary for about eight years. It's a lot of fucking money to just be driving around with.
Okay, and maybe he's saved for 10. How do you prove you didn't put any money in a bank? There's a metric fuckton of banks. Why is this burden or poof on the guilty and not the one trying to charge a person with a crime?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
There's a metric fuckton of banks. They all report to the feds, and thus it's REALLY EASY to find out how many accounts are in soandso's SSN.
edit: and innocent until proven guilty is still there. They're ACCUSING you of something (breaking tax laws), and taking the evidence. You're not GUILTY of anything until they prove it. That's like claiming picking up someone on suspicion of murder = guilty of murder.
kildy on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
$245,000 is not that much money. There are houses in California that need down payments for that. If it were $5,000,000+ I'd say you'd have a pretty sizable amount to assume laundering if they can't produce receipts.
245K is the average citizens annual salary for about eight years. It's a lot of fucking money to just be driving around with.
Okay, and maybe he's saved for 10. How do you prove you didn't put any money in a bank? There's a metric fuckton of banks. Why is this burden or poof on the guilty and not the one trying to charge a person with a crime?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
There's a metric fuckton of banks. They all report to the feds, and thus it's REALLY EASY to find out how many accounts are in soandso's SSN.
edit: and innocent until proven guilty is still there. They're ACCUSING you of something (breaking tax laws), and taking the evidence. You're not GUILTY of anything until they prove it. That's like claiming picking up someone on suspicion of murder = guilty of murder.
also, banking or lackthereof aside, why exactly would he be driving around with his life savings in his car?
$245,000 is not that much money. There are houses in California that need down payments for that. If it were $5,000,000+ I'd say you'd have a pretty sizable amount to assume laundering if they can't produce receipts.
245K is the average citizens annual salary for about eight years. It's a lot of fucking money to just be driving around with.
Okay, and maybe he's saved for 10. How do you prove you didn't put any money in a bank? There's a metric fuckton of banks. Why is this burden or poof on the guilty and not the one trying to charge a person with a crime?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
There's a metric fuckton of banks. They all report to the feds, and thus it's REALLY EASY to find out how many accounts are in soandso's SSN.
edit: and innocent until proven guilty is still there. They're ACCUSING you of something (breaking tax laws), and taking the evidence. You're not GUILTY of anything until they prove it. That's like claiming picking up someone on suspicion of murder = guilty of murder.
also, banking or lackthereof aside, why exactly would he be driving around with his life savings in his car?
Who knows? Why would someone keep their life savings under their mattress either? I don't exactly need to tell the IRS I have that either, it's not illegal because I didn't come into it at one point of time (gift tax rule that kildy presented) and I've paid taxes.
Tell me how I'd prove that other than pay stubs that I may or may not have over a period of however many years. There's a metric fuckton of banks, so going "Hey does Joe Schmoe have an account here or ever had one here?" isn't a good way to do it (and you still have no poof because you'd need to check all the banks). A paystub proves nothing about how I got that money, even if I legitimately collected it over time. The only thing it'd tell you is, "yes, he's technically able to produce that amount of money over an _____ period of time."
EDIT: Why or whatever reason he has it is beside the point, is there a reason for him to have it legally? Is there a reason for him to have it illegally? Yes to both, but we shouldn't just go taking shit because it may be illegal. There'd be a lot of fucking stuff gone if we did things on may or may nots.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
You don't call every bank. It's how a credit check works. The feds know about your accounts. You ask them. All bank related money inside the US moves through two possible methods. Either the Federal Reserve or the (my mind is completely blanking about that other group that started up.. I want to say SWIFT, but that's europe's version..)
When someone wants to run a credit check, do you think they call every bank and credit card company in the known world? That would be silly. Given your SSN, it's trivial to obtain the information in a short timeframe due to central databases. So all it takes to prove to a bank that you don't have bank accounts is a 5 minute credit report that says "credit? What credit? Fucker doesn't even have a bank account."
But yeah, the burden of proof is very low. Just prove from your W2s that you did make money and didn't put it in banks, and poof, you have your shit back (likely along with a cop giving you shit for carrying everything you own in your car and that a bank would actually give you a shitload of interest if you put a quarter million in a bank account like a normal person).
kildy on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
EDIT: Why or whatever reason he has it is beside the point, is there a reason for him to have it legally? Is there a reason for him to have it illegally? Yes to both, but we shouldn't just go taking shit because it may be illegal. There'd be a lot of fucking stuff gone if we did things on may or may nots.
on the other hand though...
1) they're not just coming into your house and taking it. The IRS gets invovled if they see a reason to audit you, which they're only going to do if you look like you're spending money you didn't report.
2) no one is ever going to know about your money or take it unless you're driving around with all of it in your car and get pulled over, and at that point legally it's suspicion of illicit activity. No offense to anyone, but more times then not if a cop takes 200K from someone just riding around with it, they're not just some innocent bystander who happens to hate banks.
3) finally, it's not like they keep the money. all you have to do is prove that you earned it legally, and if you did, it's not fucking hard to do, then they give it all back to you and you can go on about your business.
The huge difference between civil forfeiture and seizing money is the burden of proof. It's trivial to get your money back from a seizure. Really low burden of proof and it's back again, combined with legally mandated paper trails for it to call up. If nobody involved in giving you a quarter million dollars wrote it down at any point, the IRS keeps it and calls it illegal.
In civil forfeiture they just want to bust you on a crime but lack evidence. So they arrest your property and the burden of proof is HUGE, including a down payment of a few thousand dollars just to open the suit. It's absolutely absurd and a travesty of a justice system.
The huge difference between civil forfeiture and seizing money is the burden of proof. It's trivial to get your money back from a seizure. Really low burden of proof and it's back again, combined with legally mandated paper trails for it to call up. If nobody involved in giving you a quarter million dollars wrote it down at any point, the IRS keeps it and calls it illegal.
In civil forfeiture they just want to bust you on a crime but lack evidence. So they arrest your property and the burden of proof is HUGE, including a down payment of a few thousand dollars just to open the suit. It's absolutely absurd and a travesty of a justice system.
Stupid nonetheless. I'm waiting for a huge spring of "arrests" on PCs.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
2) no one is ever going to know about your money or take it unless you're driving around with all of it in your car and get pulled over, and at that point legally it's suspicion of illicit activity. No offense to anyone, but more times then not if a cop takes 200K from someone just riding around with it, they're not just some innocent bystander who happens to hate banks.
Is that so? Well then, what was their crime and what was the verdict?
Just wanted to let you know that you're on the right side of history on this issue.
Thanks. It just doesn't sit well with me. I don't care if you don't like I have a quarter of a million and I didn't keep it in the bank. That doesn't mean anything, ever. It really doesn't sit well with me that someone thinks otherwise because there's no paper trail that points directly at it. Of course, we can operate under the assumption that he should have some sort of paper trails. It's just stupid to take it.
I think the real question is; Why did the office look through his briefcase for a speeding violation? Was he looking for drugs? Since he didn't find drugs and found money, why would this be bad. Granted, it might set off a suspiciousness, but there's no cause for that other than "oh he has lots of money".
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
2) no one is ever going to know about your money or take it unless you're driving around with all of it in your car and get pulled over, and at that point legally it's suspicion of illicit activity. No offense to anyone, but more times then not if a cop takes 200K from someone just riding around with it, they're not just some innocent bystander who happens to hate banks.
Is that so? Well then, what was their crime and what was the verdict?
I don't really get that question, it could be one of a million different crimes. Maybe you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying it's illegal to ride around with that much cash, I was saying that on average, most people who just decide to carry around a few hundred thousand in cash in their car probably don't make the most honest of livings.
2) no one is ever going to know about your money or take it unless you're driving around with all of it in your car and get pulled over, and at that point legally it's suspicion of illicit activity. No offense to anyone, but more times then not if a cop takes 200K from someone just riding around with it, they're not just some innocent bystander who happens to hate banks.
Is that so? Well then, what was their crime and what was the verdict?
I don't really get that question, it could be one of a million different crimes. Maybe you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying it's illegal to ride around with that much cash, I was saying that on average, most people who just decide to carry around a few hundred thousand in cash in their car probably don't make the most honest of livings.
How do you know? Maybe he was putting a down payment on a home and he keeps his money in his own house. You can't just assume he was up to know good without just cause. That's why they have warrants for searches and seizures.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Just wanted to let you know that you're on the right side of history on this issue.
Thanks. It just doesn't sit well with me. I don't care if you don't like I have a quarter of a million and I didn't keep it in the bank. That doesn't mean anything, ever. It really doesn't sit well with me that someone thinks otherwise because there's no paper trail that points directly at it. Of course, we can operate under the assumption that he should have some sort of paper trails. It's just stupid to take it.
I think the real question is; Why did the office look through his briefcase for a speeding violation? Was he looking for drugs? Since he didn't find drugs and found money, why would this be bad. Granted, it might set off a suspiciousness, but there's no cause for that other than "oh he has lots of money".
You're right. It is a disgusting premise and speaks to the failings of a generation. I'm just not sure which to blame.
Just wanted to let you know that you're on the right side of history on this issue.
Thanks. It just doesn't sit well with me. I don't care if you don't like I have a quarter of a million and I didn't keep it in the bank. That doesn't mean anything, ever. It really doesn't sit well with me that someone thinks otherwise because there's no paper trail that points directly at it. Of course, we can operate under the assumption that he should have some sort of paper trails. It's just stupid to take it.
I think the real question is; Why did the office look through his briefcase for a speeding violation? Was he looking for drugs? Since he didn't find drugs and found money, why would this be bad. Granted, it might set off a suspiciousness, but there's no cause for that other than "oh he has lots of money".
You're right. It is a disgusting premise and speaks to the failings of a generation. I'm just not sure which to blame.
No one takes up a cause that's no the most popular of actions due to publicity. Do warrants apply to vehicles? If a cop asked me to search through my car, can I not say "No, get a warrant if you suspect me of a crime."?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
2) no one is ever going to know about your money or take it unless you're driving around with all of it in your car and get pulled over, and at that point legally it's suspicion of illicit activity. No offense to anyone, but more times then not if a cop takes 200K from someone just riding around with it, they're not just some innocent bystander who happens to hate banks.
Is that so? Well then, what was their crime and what was the verdict?
I don't really get that question, it could be one of a million different crimes. Maybe you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying it's illegal to ride around with that much cash, I was saying that on average, most people who just decide to carry around a few hundred thousand in cash in their car probably don't make the most honest of livings.
So what? There is no punishment for "not making the most honest of livings" until you're proven guilty. Your argument is fallacious. I'm not arguing with your statement but with the relevance to this discussion. The fact that people affected from the practice MAY be at odds with the law does not make the practice itself lawful or sensible.
Just wanted to let you know that you're on the right side of history on this issue.
Thanks. It just doesn't sit well with me. I don't care if you don't like I have a quarter of a million and I didn't keep it in the bank. That doesn't mean anything, ever. It really doesn't sit well with me that someone thinks otherwise because there's no paper trail that points directly at it. Of course, we can operate under the assumption that he should have some sort of paper trails. It's just stupid to take it.
I think the real question is; Why did the office look through his briefcase for a speeding violation? Was he looking for drugs? Since he didn't find drugs and found money, why would this be bad. Granted, it might set off a suspiciousness, but there's no cause for that other than "oh he has lots of money".
You're right. It is a disgusting premise and speaks to the failings of a generation. I'm just not sure which to blame.
No one takes up a cause that's no the most popular of actions due to publicity. Do warrants apply to vehicles? If a cop asked me to search through my car, can I not say "No, get a warrant if you suspect me of a crime."?
"Young man, denying my search request gives me probable cause. Under the Patriot Act I am now entitled to search your vehicle. Please bend over."
2) no one is ever going to know about your money or take it unless you're driving around with all of it in your car and get pulled over, and at that point legally it's suspicion of illicit activity. No offense to anyone, but more times then not if a cop takes 200K from someone just riding around with it, they're not just some innocent bystander who happens to hate banks.
Is that so? Well then, what was their crime and what was the verdict?
I don't really get that question, it could be one of a million different crimes. Maybe you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying it's illegal to ride around with that much cash, I was saying that on average, most people who just decide to carry around a few hundred thousand in cash in their car probably don't make the most honest of livings.
So what? There is no punishment for "not making the most honest of livings" until you're proven guilty. Your argument is fallacious. I'm not arguing with your statement but with the relevance to this discussion. The fact that people affected from the practice MAY be at odds with the law does not make the practice itself lawful or sensible.
I guess I just don't have a problem with cops pulling people over on a routine stop, seeing a briefcase full of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and impounding it until legality can be proven, just like I don't see an issue with a routine traffic stop leading to the impounding of a car because it's not registered in your name, until you can prove otherwise.
Mainly I don't oppose it because, like most of us, I don't have 250 thousand dollars, and if I did, banks or not, I wouldn't fucking let it ride shotgun in my convertible. They make cashiers checks for a reason.
Mainly I don't oppose it because, like most of us, I don't have 250 thousand dollars, and if I did, banks or not, I wouldn't fucking let it ride shotgun in my convertible. They make cashiers checks for a reason.
Not everyone follows the same course of actions. Not everyone thinks things through either. I agree, it's completely stupid the way he went about it, but I find nothing illegal about it. Slightly strange though? Yes.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
2) no one is ever going to know about your money or take it unless you're driving around with all of it in your car and get pulled over, and at that point legally it's suspicion of illicit activity. No offense to anyone, but more times then not if a cop takes 200K from someone just riding around with it, they're not just some innocent bystander who happens to hate banks.
Is that so? Well then, what was their crime and what was the verdict?
I don't really get that question, it could be one of a million different crimes. Maybe you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying it's illegal to ride around with that much cash, I was saying that on average, most people who just decide to carry around a few hundred thousand in cash in their car probably don't make the most honest of livings.
So what? There is no punishment for "not making the most honest of livings" until you're proven guilty. Your argument is fallacious. I'm not arguing with your statement but with the relevance to this discussion. The fact that people affected from the practice MAY be at odds with the law does not make the practice itself lawful or sensible.
I guess I just don't have a problem with cops pulling people over on a routine stop, seeing a briefcase full of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and impounding it until legality can be proven, just like I don't see an issue with a routine traffic stop leading to the impounding of a car because it's not registered in your name, until you can prove otherwise.
Mainly I don't oppose it because, like most of us, I don't have 250 thousand dollars, and if I did, banks or not, I wouldn't fucking let it ride shotgun in my convertible. They make cashiers checks for a reason.
Off the top of my head, that's called Appeal to Emotion, but there are probably 10 other fallacies intermingled in there. You're free to feel any way you like, but your argument unfortunately is incorrect and I'd call your position self-deluding or ignorant, depending on whether you've managed to convince yourself or simply haven't really applied much thought to it.
zeeny on
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Mainly I don't oppose it because, like most of us, I don't have 250 thousand dollars, and if I did, banks or not, I wouldn't fucking let it ride shotgun in my convertible. They make cashiers checks for a reason.
Not everyone follows the same course of actions. Not everyone thinks things through either. I agree, it's completely stupid the way he went about it, but I find nothing illegal about it. Slightly strange though? Yes.
I agree. I mean it's a little facist, I won't deny that for a second, but like I said, I guess I just don't care because I'll never have that much money, so to me either you're up to something shady and "yay!" we get to take your money if you can't prove you got it legally and hopefully use it for something good, or it turns out you're just a rich idiot and we give it back to you.
amateurhour on
are YOU on the beer list?
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
Off the top of my head, that's called Appeal to Emotion, but there are probably 10 other fallacies intermingled in there. You're free to feel any way you like, but your argument unfortunately is incorrect and I'd call your position self-deluding or ignorant, depending on whether you've managed to convince yourself or simply haven't really applied much thought to it.
You do whatever you want there buddy, but just for the record, you can't call someone else's argument incorrect because you don't agree with it and you feel like googling a thesaurus to use big words. Until you can give a better argument as to why it's wrong, instead of just calling my thought process psychologically backwards, you're really no different a debater than I.
Off the top of my head, that's called you being arrogant in an attempt to validate your claim.
Mainly I don't oppose it because, like most of us, I don't have 250 thousand dollars, and if I did, banks or not, I wouldn't fucking let it ride shotgun in my convertible. They make cashiers checks for a reason.
Not everyone follows the same course of actions. Not everyone thinks things through either. I agree, it's completely stupid the way he went about it, but I find nothing illegal about it. Slightly strange though? Yes.
I agree. I mean it's a little facist, I won't deny that for a second, but like I said, I guess I just don't care because I'll never have that much money, so to me either you're up to something shady and "yay!" we get to take your money if you can't prove you got it legally and hopefully use it for something good, or it turns out you're just a rich idiot and we give it back to you.
And that's a false dichotomy, but hey, don't let me stop you. Keep them coming.
Posts
Really, they should have to prove that in order to take it in the first place, unless it was the subject of a search warrant or something.
I hate doing this shit, but; If you bought alcohol and I thought you were going to sell it to a minor, just for being in possession of the alcohol, should I have the right to take it from you?
You can't just take shit because it could potentially be used illegally. For all you know he could be putting a down payment on a $10 million mansion. Granted, he wasn't able to justify it, but how many times have you come into contact with an police officer and in those times, how many have you been flabbergasted or just had a hard time talking?
We're getting third hand information, he could've said "I just got it from the bank" and the officer said, "do you have any receipts?" and he went, "no, I don't have them" and that transmogrified into, "He was unable to produce any receipts or give any other justification for why he had it." Maybe he did win it at a casino, and just threw away the receipts.
A suitcase of money and a very valuable item are fundamentally different in that one can be used to buy things, the other is far more difficult. I may have a painting worth $50, but I can't use it as currency when I buy lunch unless the waiter really likes my artwork.
Anyways, civil forfeiture is a stupid law, but saying you lost the paperwork on large sums of money is also stupid, since you can just call the place you got it from and have them pull up the record saying they gave it to you.
Granted. But some people, quite a bit, don't use banks. One of my older relatives had an okay reason for not doing it, but he was alive during the Great Depression. If you carried around $1,000,000 with you, and you've never used a bank, what would you tell the officer?
The officer should have taken his plate, wrote him a ticket for speeding, and sent him on his way since that is the only crime he was guilty of. If he was in possession of 200 kilos of coke. Alright, then take the money. To know that any of my property is subject to theft because of an inconsequential misdemeanor is quite unsettling. It's not like the the meter maid can take my hubcaps because I parked illegally.
I don't really feel I have to know why he had the money. I don't think that's what the burden of proof should be. Like bowen keeps saying, the burden of proof should be on the officer to prove the money is being used illegally, not on the citizen to prove he has money for a legal reason. Maybe he just sold his old car at a car swap place and insisted on cash for obvious reasons. Maybe instead of winning the money at the casino he was going to place a sports bet that he and 9 of his friends had all pooled their money for. Maybe he etc. It doesn't matter. As long as its plausible - beyond a reasonable doubt - for him to have the money for legal reasons, then the officer should have to prove its being used for illegal activities.
As for taking the items for a routine misdemeanor: If you get pulled over and happen to also have a visible other broken law with you, the cop will bust you for it. If I get pulled over and have, say, a handgun on the seat and no permit on me for it, they're probably going to take it (and bust me in that case, but hey). The rules against carrying around tons of cash are silly, though this isn't exactly civil forfeiture (which is taking your fucking couch), it's simply asking for proof that stupidly large amounts of hard cash being transported are legit. Mostly because there are very few reasons to have that much money on you. Sure, I could have $20,000 on hand to go buy a car, but that also assumes I'm finding a legit dealership that wants $20,000 in cash.
My basic point on the money though is that almost all cash has a paper trail, even if it's not on your end. If you have a ton of money with no paper trail on either end, I'll bet you someone's breaking the law (namely because with no records of the money, Someone's not paying taxes on it)
Edit: And I could have been saving for years, that doesn't mean I'm able to produce pay stubs for 10+ years worth of income. I doubt even an employer can do that (I think you're only legally required to keep 5 years worth at the most, don't quote me on that though).
He sold a car for $246,000? And got cash for it? Where do you GET $246,000 in cash? And you'd have a new owner of your car that just got the title transferred that you can get a hold of to prove it's legit.
In the case of large amounts of money (and the law really is LARGE amounts), with absolutely no paper trail to prove it's legally obtained. Because we're such a paper trail intense society that it's pretty trivial to prove money was moved (heck, in the case of the car, call person who gave you the cash, cops call HIS bank..)
That's a moot point. What law was broken to justify the money being taken?
Stubs for 5 would prove you have a history of not depositing it in banks, which is all you need. To prove a pattern that would allow you to have it. The burden of proof is Really Low for both sides.
The law it's usually picked up on is an accusation of laundering, from what I see.
Aha, found it. It's an IRS rule for reporting over $10,000 in cash obtained in a single year from anyone. You're legally required to fill out a form, or it's subject to seizure until you prove it's legit.
So the law you're in violation of is... tax law.
I don't see how you would be able to prove that without an investigation first. Let's move to smaller numbers, if I had $10,000 would you feel comfortable taking that? If so, why? If not, what makes it any different? He could easily be putting a down payment on a house with money he's been keeping. Maybe he worked outside the country and had all his bills turned into American cash before entering at a local bank that may not have the same burdern of proof that those in the US would have. I'd rather let someone get away with money laundering than just set a precedence with allowing people to take shit without reasonable doubt and an investigation.
$245,000 is not that much money. There are houses in California that need down payments for that. If it were $5,000,000+ I'd say you'd have a pretty sizable amount to assume laundering if they can't produce receipts.
It's not that much money in the form of purchasing expensive shit. It's a ton of CASH.
That's 2,460 $100 bills. In a case. You're trying to say walking around with that many bills is a perfectly normal thing to do with absolutely no paperwork proving you got that money anywhere?
245K is the average citizens annual salary for about eight years. It's a lot of fucking money to just be driving around with.
Yeah but we don't know if it's from a singular event, and we also don't know if he already filed it (or will file it on his taxes). That just sounds like your run of the mill income tax law. If you make less than $10,000 you basically don't have to report it to IRS on your taxes. (EDIT: That's how I'm interpreting it anyways, link me the specific law)
Okay, and maybe he's saved for 10. How do you prove you didn't put any money in a bank? There's a metric fuckton of banks. Why is this burden or poof on the guilty and not the one trying to charge a person with a crime?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It's actually a spin off of the gift tax rules. Because you have to declare and pay extra on anything over $10,000 (I think it's 11 now, but the form rule hasn't changed) from a single source, it's a violation of the law to have it in your possession without having filled out of a form with the IRS (or having proof that you've only had it for less than 15 days and were going to fill it out).
They can pick it up because a large amount of cash in hand (over $10,000) with no paper trail breaks the IRS's rules. The burden of proof is very low, and you can have it back when you prove it's legitimately yours (and have a paper trail the IRS can use to tax you on it).
There's a metric fuckton of banks. They all report to the feds, and thus it's REALLY EASY to find out how many accounts are in soandso's SSN.
edit: and innocent until proven guilty is still there. They're ACCUSING you of something (breaking tax laws), and taking the evidence. You're not GUILTY of anything until they prove it. That's like claiming picking up someone on suspicion of murder = guilty of murder.
also, banking or lackthereof aside, why exactly would he be driving around with his life savings in his car?
Who knows? Why would someone keep their life savings under their mattress either? I don't exactly need to tell the IRS I have that either, it's not illegal because I didn't come into it at one point of time (gift tax rule that kildy presented) and I've paid taxes.
Tell me how I'd prove that other than pay stubs that I may or may not have over a period of however many years. There's a metric fuckton of banks, so going "Hey does Joe Schmoe have an account here or ever had one here?" isn't a good way to do it (and you still have no poof because you'd need to check all the banks). A paystub proves nothing about how I got that money, even if I legitimately collected it over time. The only thing it'd tell you is, "yes, he's technically able to produce that amount of money over an _____ period of time."
EDIT: Why or whatever reason he has it is beside the point, is there a reason for him to have it legally? Is there a reason for him to have it illegally? Yes to both, but we shouldn't just go taking shit because it may be illegal. There'd be a lot of fucking stuff gone if we did things on may or may nots.
When someone wants to run a credit check, do you think they call every bank and credit card company in the known world? That would be silly. Given your SSN, it's trivial to obtain the information in a short timeframe due to central databases. So all it takes to prove to a bank that you don't have bank accounts is a 5 minute credit report that says "credit? What credit? Fucker doesn't even have a bank account."
But yeah, the burden of proof is very low. Just prove from your W2s that you did make money and didn't put it in banks, and poof, you have your shit back (likely along with a cop giving you shit for carrying everything you own in your car and that a bank would actually give you a shitload of interest if you put a quarter million in a bank account like a normal person).
on the other hand though...
1) they're not just coming into your house and taking it. The IRS gets invovled if they see a reason to audit you, which they're only going to do if you look like you're spending money you didn't report.
2) no one is ever going to know about your money or take it unless you're driving around with all of it in your car and get pulled over, and at that point legally it's suspicion of illicit activity. No offense to anyone, but more times then not if a cop takes 200K from someone just riding around with it, they're not just some innocent bystander who happens to hate banks.
3) finally, it's not like they keep the money. all you have to do is prove that you earned it legally, and if you did, it's not fucking hard to do, then they give it all back to you and you can go on about your business.
In civil forfeiture they just want to bust you on a crime but lack evidence. So they arrest your property and the burden of proof is HUGE, including a down payment of a few thousand dollars just to open the suit. It's absolutely absurd and a travesty of a justice system.
Stupid nonetheless. I'm waiting for a huge spring of "arrests" on PCs.
Just wanted to let you know that you're on the right side of history on this issue.
Is that so? Well then, what was their crime and what was the verdict?
Thanks. It just doesn't sit well with me. I don't care if you don't like I have a quarter of a million and I didn't keep it in the bank. That doesn't mean anything, ever. It really doesn't sit well with me that someone thinks otherwise because there's no paper trail that points directly at it. Of course, we can operate under the assumption that he should have some sort of paper trails. It's just stupid to take it.
I think the real question is; Why did the office look through his briefcase for a speeding violation? Was he looking for drugs? Since he didn't find drugs and found money, why would this be bad. Granted, it might set off a suspiciousness, but there's no cause for that other than "oh he has lots of money".
I don't really get that question, it could be one of a million different crimes. Maybe you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying it's illegal to ride around with that much cash, I was saying that on average, most people who just decide to carry around a few hundred thousand in cash in their car probably don't make the most honest of livings.
How do you know? Maybe he was putting a down payment on a home and he keeps his money in his own house. You can't just assume he was up to know good without just cause. That's why they have warrants for searches and seizures.
You're right. It is a disgusting premise and speaks to the failings of a generation. I'm just not sure which to blame.
No one takes up a cause that's no the most popular of actions due to publicity. Do warrants apply to vehicles? If a cop asked me to search through my car, can I not say "No, get a warrant if you suspect me of a crime."?
So what? There is no punishment for "not making the most honest of livings" until you're proven guilty. Your argument is fallacious. I'm not arguing with your statement but with the relevance to this discussion. The fact that people affected from the practice MAY be at odds with the law does not make the practice itself lawful or sensible.
"Young man, denying my search request gives me probable cause. Under the Patriot Act I am now entitled to search your vehicle. Please bend over."
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I guess I just don't have a problem with cops pulling people over on a routine stop, seeing a briefcase full of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and impounding it until legality can be proven, just like I don't see an issue with a routine traffic stop leading to the impounding of a car because it's not registered in your name, until you can prove otherwise.
Mainly I don't oppose it because, like most of us, I don't have 250 thousand dollars, and if I did, banks or not, I wouldn't fucking let it ride shotgun in my convertible. They make cashiers checks for a reason.
Not everyone follows the same course of actions. Not everyone thinks things through either. I agree, it's completely stupid the way he went about it, but I find nothing illegal about it. Slightly strange though? Yes.
Off the top of my head, that's called Appeal to Emotion, but there are probably 10 other fallacies intermingled in there. You're free to feel any way you like, but your argument unfortunately is incorrect and I'd call your position self-deluding or ignorant, depending on whether you've managed to convince yourself or simply haven't really applied much thought to it.
I agree. I mean it's a little facist, I won't deny that for a second, but like I said, I guess I just don't care because I'll never have that much money, so to me either you're up to something shady and "yay!" we get to take your money if you can't prove you got it legally and hopefully use it for something good, or it turns out you're just a rich idiot and we give it back to you.
You do whatever you want there buddy, but just for the record, you can't call someone else's argument incorrect because you don't agree with it and you feel like googling a thesaurus to use big words. Until you can give a better argument as to why it's wrong, instead of just calling my thought process psychologically backwards, you're really no different a debater than I.
Off the top of my head, that's called you being arrogant in an attempt to validate your claim.
And that's a false dichotomy, but hey, don't let me stop you. Keep them coming.