TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.kltv.com/story/37652227/hopk ... 4k-in-cash

According to an arrest affidavit, deputies boarded the Greyhound bus during a scheduled stop and told passengers they would be searching for drugs and weapons.

How is this legal in the USA? Just hop on a bus and just start systematically searching everybody, for just whatever they can find? Seems much more likely in some 3rd world kind of place, not here in the US. But apparently the times, they are a'changing as the old song goes.

Now granted, the (very brief) article said that the guy did give his consent to be searched. But do you think if he had said "no" that the police would simply have said "oh, ok" and just moved on to the next person in line? Sure. You betcha.

The article goes on to say that the guy was arrested for money laundering because he couldn't give what the police considered a good explanation for having that amount of cash on him.

Some people do all their business in cash. They don't like banks for whatever reason, or simply prefer dealing in cash (for legitimate reasons). Last I heard, cash was still "legal tender for all debts, public and private." I recently sold a travel trailer for almost that same amount of money ($14k). The guy paid me in cash. Biggest pile of $100 bills that has ever been on my kitchen table, I can tell you for sure!

But anyway, maybe the guy is guilty as charged. If so, good job guys.

However, on the other hand, maybe he's just not good with the English language and was having a hard time understanding what was going on; or maybe he was "acting suspicious" because he gets nervous around people with guns who can drag him off a bus, throw him in a cage, and take his money.

Or maybe he mistakenly thought he was a citizen in a free country who could travel for his own business with money to do what he needed to do without having to justify his actions and plans to some government official somewhere along the way.

Oh, and by the way. If the guy goes to trial and is found not guilty (or even if he is released without going to trial), what do you think the odds are that he will ever see any of his confiscated money again?

It's called Civil Asset Forfeiture. The SCOTUS has found the practice to be constitutional. They were wrong, IMHO. Police can randomly take any and all of your possessions and you can fight them in court to try and get them back. You won't. At best you might get a settlement where you get some of your stuff back.

There are many, many stories just like this one from around the country. I personally know several people who have been victimized by LEO's in this way. And none of them had done anything illegal. None of them were even accused of doing anything illegal. Seizure of assets does not require that the victim be charged with any crime.

This is a prime reason why we need the second amendment.

"Hopkins County deputies arrest man caught with $14k in cash

Caught?

That's a loaded word if ever I heard one.

He's did not as far as the story goes do anything illegal by the mere possession of a large amount of cash.

As far as I know having $14k in cash is not illegal.

This story sounds incomplete, but if presented as it really happened, the way the search was conducted is an outrage of epic proportions.

If I care to carry large amounts of cash if I want (I don't, but that's beside the point) I can and it's not illegal for me to do so. Heck, if I wanted to I could glue $100.00 dollars bill over my entire body instead of wearing clothes and it'd be perfectly legal.

Either we don't know 'the rest of the story' or L.E. has gone off the rails in this instance...

I wish the article had given a lot more details. Did the police search any other passengers? If not, I suspect they were targeting the money-mule and simply gave a cover story. Otherwise, this was not constitutional under any case law of which I'm aware. I'm talking about the overall "board and search" not searching a man who consented.

Chas.

One time as I was boarding a plane for Italy, I was singled out for a search and was caught by the Feds with 340,000 lira in cash.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:It's called Civil Asset Forfeiture. The SCOTUS has found the practice to be constitutional. They were wrong, IMHO. Police can randomly take any and all of your possessions and you can fight them in court to try and get them back. You won't. At best you might get a settlement where you get some of your stuff back.

There are many, many stories just like this one from around the country. I personally know several people who have been victimized by LEO's in this way. And none of them had done anything illegal. None of them were even accused of doing anything illegal. Seizure of assets does not require that the victim be charged with any crime.

This is a prime reason why we need the second amendment.

In the 1770's there was a war because a government perpetrated such things upon its subjects. Those subjects won their war, became citizens of a new nation and wrote a document that supposedly protected the new country's citizens against such things happening to them at the hands of the new government.

I recall an expose on 60 Minutes years ago about a sheriff in Louisiana making stops and confiscating cash along I10. His excuse was drug dogs would "hit" on the money. Someone chided him to check his own cash and the dogs "hit" on it!

philip964 wrote:One time as I was boarding a plane for Italy, I was singled out for a search and was caught by the Feds with 340,000 lira in cash.

LOL..

After a trip to Vietnam I gave each my kids a 50,000 Dong note.. They thought they were rich!

Civil Asset Forfeiture is the single biggest unconstitutional outrage inflicted against US citizens. I cannot believe it has not been struck down.

One of my hobbies in playing poker, and it is not uncommon for me to be carrying cash sums that might be considered "large" by some folks. As a precaution, I make sure I carry a recent bank withdrawal slip for an amount equal to or greater than the amount of cash, along with my latest W-2 just in case I need to "prove" where the cash came from. It is beyond sad that I need to do this in what once was a free country.

Fortunately, my income from my "regular" job is enough to easily justify the amount of cash I am carrying. Maybe we can just start getting permits from the government to let us carry cash and other assets......

Soccerdad1995 wrote:One of my hobbies in playing poker, and it is not uncommon for me to be carrying cash sums that might be considered "large" by some folks. As a precaution, I make sure I carry a recent bank withdrawal slip for an amount equal to or greater than the amount of cash, along with my latest W-2 just in case I need to "prove" where the cash came from. It is beyond sad that I need to do this in what once was a free country.

Fortunately, my income from my "regular" job is enough to easily justify the amount of cash I am carrying. Maybe we can just start getting permits from the government to let us carry cash and other assets......

I wonder what happens if you resist a "civil seizure". Since it isn't an arrest, what if it's strapped to you on a money belt? Are you obligated to cooperate with their detaching it from you. I have a sneaking suspicion that almost all the seizures are "incident to arrest" for a crime that suddenly disappears after they get the money. In this case, presumably the first mistake was consenting to the search. Another reason why one should never consent to a search without a warrant. Of course this is easy for me to say never having been asked to consent to a search of my person or vehicle, but its another reason on my list not to.

ScottDLS wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:One of my hobbies in playing poker, and it is not uncommon for me to be carrying cash sums that might be considered "large" by some folks. As a precaution, I make sure I carry a recent bank withdrawal slip for an amount equal to or greater than the amount of cash, along with my latest W-2 just in case I need to "prove" where the cash came from. It is beyond sad that I need to do this in what once was a free country.

Fortunately, my income from my "regular" job is enough to easily justify the amount of cash I am carrying. Maybe we can just start getting permits from the government to let us carry cash and other assets......

I wonder what happens if you resist a "civil seizure". Since it isn't an arrest, what if it's strapped to you on a money belt? Are you obligated to cooperate with their detaching it from you. I have a sneaking suspicion that almost all the seizures are "incident to arrest" for a crime that suddenly disappears after they get the money. In this case, presumably the first mistake was consenting to the search. Another reason why one should never consent to a search without a warrant. Of course this is easy for me to say never having been asked to consent to a search of my person or vehicle, but its another reason on my list not to.

Consenting to a search is usually the first mistake in these cases. People naively believe that since they are not doing anything illegal, and "have nothing to hide" then they should go ahead and let the officer see that this is the case so they can go on their way. They don't understand that their cash and other assets can be seized based on the officers suspicion of an illegal source even if there is no evidence of them having committed a crime.

It can also be very difficult for most folks to refuse a search. The LEO is usually much better at convincing people to give consent than the average person is at refusing consent, and most folks can feel pretty darn intimidated until they say OK.

When I was much, much, younger I had a LEO skip the consent entirely. He stopped me, then asked me to step out of the car so he could show me that my tail light was out. After I closed the drivers door, he opened it back up and started poking around in my car. This was before dash cams, or body cams, and I was an ignorant teen ager. I don't think even the most brazen LEO would try to pull that now given the technology we have today.

Another interesting point about civil seizure. It IS possible to win the cases to get your money back, but you will often spend as much as you get back. ScottDLS Dad is a semi-retired lawyer with 51 years of practicing law and member of the Bar. He represented someone who had a low six figure sum of cash seized by Customs while departing the US on an international flight. They did actually violate money laundering regulations by failing to declare the currency, but they were able to prove a legitimate origin and purpose for the currency. With legal help they received the majority of the money back. Good luck to "Juan or Juanita Doe", middle class US citizen, getting the money back without a highly experienced international lawyer.

I have heard that you can often get the money back at least with an expensive legal battle. The cost and hassle should not be required. Hopefully the officers at the site accurately record how much money was seized also.

I agree with others. Once you consent to a search, you forfeit some of your legal protections and make things a lot harder.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:None of them were even accused of doing anything illegal. Seizure of assets does not require that the victim be charged with any crime.

This is done under the fatuous notion that the assets committed the crime, not the person holding them. It’s idiotic. It is nothing more strongarm robbery.