Arguments like this are why it's a good thing we don't base our criminal justice system on statistics.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is very different from "Guilty because most people in similar situations are guilty, so let's not bother to prove it in this case."

The cops would have a field day, for instance by arresting college students at random on the weekend because statistically most will test positive for controlled substances.

"Proof" by evidence is an inherently statistical process. E.g. cops find a DNA match between a suspect and skin cells found under a murder victim's fingernails under circumstances where it is clear she tried to fight off her attacker. Does that "prove" guilt? No, it proves that under similar circumstances, guilty is highly likely. The problem is not that the justice system is statistical. That's unavoidable. The problem is the unfortunate confluence of the low standard of proof ("more likely than not" versus "beyond a reasonable doubt") combined with the high ratio of illegal versus legal reasons for carrying large amounts of cash (i.e. a high prior odds ratio).

FWIW (Rayiner knows this, but maybe everyone else doesn't):

The concept of "proof of innocence" does not appear in the Constitution; it derives from common law, and the Latin word it comes from doesn't mean "prove" in the mathematical sense.

Which makes sense, because "innocent until formally proven guilty" doesn't make sense in a sentence that proceeds to "beyond a reasonable doubt".

And it's interesting, too, how often people go in the other direction, and seem to think "any shred of theory, however improbable, means you can't be found guilty", and attempt to try to classify it as "beyond any/all doubt".

Yes, but statistically analyzing the likelihood of guilt using given evidence is different than arbitrarily linking blanket cases where there is no defined connection. Just saying "cash is suspicious so we are allowed to seize it whenever we see a lot of it" is a blatant violation of property rights. There is absolutely no crime that can be linked directly to cash ownership.

> If you pull over 100 people with large amounts of cash, what percentage obtained it illegally? If it's greater than 50%, then you can always seize the cash under that standard.

That's an interesting question, but it's not obviously greater than 50%. Honestly, I don't think it's higher than 50% at all, but certainly it isn't so clearly higher that it should be accepted without evidence.

Not only that, but just because it's currently popular to pay with plastic or some other form of electronic transfer, it shouldn't "criminalize" cash.

I'm not a conspiracy nut but I can certainly see how someone who is could view this as an effort to legally coerce citizens into using only traceable methods of payment approved by commercial processors under the implication that something like cash or bitcoin would only be used by those trying to hide something.