Yes, it’s I’ll-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1]

It’s not surprising that some people would also choose to keep the money “safe” by keeping it with them when they travel.

The fact that it’s irrational is irrelevant. It’s quite common, and therefore this is a great example of abusive civil forfeiture. Corrupt cops have surely become aware that such behavior is commonplace. They’ve learned how to sniff out such victims and prey upon them.

I can’t think of a better example than this case.

[1]: https://slate.com/business/2015/02/keeping-cash-at-home-way-...

>Yes, it’s ill-advised to keep one’s savings in cash, but a shockingly large number of people do it.[1]

Try doing a stint in Fintech, and then get back to me once you realize how the number of ways for you to be deprived of access to your savings, and the nigh impossibility of finding out why or who to talk to to remedy the situation. Note how how account freezes only freeze withdrawals, and will allow continued deposits all day long. Note how no one will be straight up with you about compliance requirements, and in fact, how knoeledge of reporting requirements instantly elevates you in terms of compliance risk, possibly requiring a SAR to be filed out of an abundance of caution.

Once your money is in the financial system, you'd best plan on it being in adversarial hands. You are suspicious by default. If you use your money in ways the government deems unusual, they are obligated to report it to stay in business.

This is not paranoia. I know the implementation details of these policies and systems. It is, in fact, creepy as all hell. It makes me sick, and I don't even have anything to hide.

According to an article in The Washington Post [1] he does not trust banks. He did not normally keep it in his car; but,"had it in the car with him because he was planning to look for homes closer to his children that weekend, and his parents were scheduled to be out of town." (He normally keeps hte cash in his parents' house.)

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/stephen-lar...

>The guy habitually kept $86,900 in his vehicle?

Leery of banks and traveling from one state to another, to visit family..."Stephen was driving from Texas to a small town near Reno to visit his two daughters." So, maybe not "habitually", but in certain circumstances.

Almost as if the Nevada State Patrol might watch for people they think are from an ethnic group that has a distrust of banks and has out of state plates.

How is it not abusive regardless? Doing something "stupid" is not a crime.

The parent said civil forfeiture was wrong—he seems to agree with you, but he’s making a different point that keeping your life’s savings in your car is a bad idea for many other reasons besides civil forfeiture.

> There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one.

To me that implies that this is less abusive than other cases. I don't agree.

That’s fine, but that’s a different argument than your comment:

> How is it not abusive regardless? Doing something "stupid" is not a crime.

You both transparently agree that it is abusive regardless and that doing something stupid is not a crime.

It is abusive. It is also either indicated of a crime (fishy), or incredibly stupid.

None of these things are mutually exclusive.

Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy.

If it’s not evidence of the crime they’re charging you with, they need to keep their hands off.

No one is arguing otherwise. Everyone here has explicitly agreed with this in the first sentence of each comment.

> There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one.

This implies (to me) that this case is less abusive than others. I don't agree.

I was responding to this comment:

> Cops don’t (or shouldn’t, I should say) get to steal your stuff because you’re doing something fishy.

I don't know if it is ESL or Twitter but people seem to be having trouble parsing grammar these days.

What I said is "There are far better examples of abusive civil forfeiture than this one."

The adjective "abusive" applies to the noun "civil forfeiture." The adjective "better" applies to the noun "examples." This is how standard English syntax works. Adjectives are taken as applying to the nearest noun following them.

The issue isn’t your grammar — you were perfectly clear, and everyone understands what you were saying. We just disagree with it. This is a textbook example of abusive civil forfeiture.

No, OP is clearly saying that this instance of civil forfeiture theft is less outrageous (a “worse example”) than others because the victim was acting suspicious.

> and they are FDIC insured.

So how does the FDIC help you when the bank says your deposit is $0? Banks are very capable of fucking up, be it bank accounts or loosing track of who owned which locker during mergers.

I know plenty of wealthy tech investors and founders who habitually carry more value than that on their wrist. Curiously they never seem to get stopped or have their assets seized.

this does seem odd, i agree.

I would imagine that a vet has plenty of reasons not to trust the government.

Agreed but then the bizarre part was consenting to a search of his vehicle.

As a defense attorney, I take the professional position that nobody should consent to a search.

However, I am aware that police officers can be very convincing that they're friendly guys on your side. And in this case, perhaps he was -- after all, the officer who initiated the stop argued against the civil forfeiture. Social conditioning is a heck of a thing.

The problem with never consenting to a search or never talking to police is the ease with which cops can ruin your weekend (and even life) if they get pissed off at you. I may be able afford a lawyer but is the night in jail worth the effort to assert my rights?

This is why cops on Interstates will target out of state plates. People just want to get on to their destination. And not being a state resident, it makes it harder for them to fight after the fact. [citation needed]

This is surreal. They can invent anything to get in your car. "sir you insulted me" "what is it on your seat it looks like a weapon (when it is a phone)" "look my dog sniffed something"

Smart? No. But people do stupid stuff wrt the police all the time-- consenting to searches, speaking without a lawyer, etc...

Just because it's dumb or even "bizarre," does not make him any less of a victim.

As a military veteran the guy might have had some misplaced respect/trust for police officers previously.

His consent wasn't likely to be required. That consent is merely a superficial layer, easily discarded by staging dog alerting. If the guy didn't consent out of misplaced respect, he may have chosen to do so because he realized the cops can get in your car if they particularly want to no matter what you do. And once he mentioned the large amounts of cash, that was that.

I would not necessarily be aware of any right to not consent to a search.

The fourth amendment gives you that right (despite it having been badly mutilated by all sorts of supposedly valid or forced exceptions (ie: border areas). You're supposed to be secure in your possessions and property. The legal breakdown is here, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re... and definitely doesn't allow cops to arbitrarily rifle through your car looking for evidence of suspicious things. They are supposed to have prior and clear cause for probable illegal activity (note that being suspected of having cash is not an illegal actiity), though probable cause can be stretched to include a lot of things by a sympathetic judge and corrupt cops.

The bill of rights doesn’t actually give you rights. The premise of the bill of rights is people have rights superior to the government and the government is explicitly required to respect certain rights as listed as well as respect other rights and authorities not explicitly listed (9th amendment). In fact the 9th amendment explicitly forbids construction of a rationale by the government to deny rights, listed or not listed.

Of course, I’m only a citizen of the United States, not a gov’t official or attorney or judge. So naturally my plain reading of the Constitution and the writings surrounding its adoption are JustMyOpinion. Considering the government’s resources are far superior its best to kowtow to the government’s interpretation should one run afoul of such things and hope that due process will sort it out eventually.

Thanks, next time a cop wants to search my vehicle I'll be sure to wait for you to reply with a link to a website and then read it in its entirety. And yes, that website says they can search with probable cause, and it doesn't say that being suspected of having cash doesn't count.

The whole point is that because it's badly mutilated, an individual citizen quietly driving their car has no particular reason to deeply understand the relevant jurisprudence when a cop asks them to do something, and is heavily incentivized to say "Okay" and find a lawyer later. That's why, for instance, the Miranda warning is a thing - you have the right to remain silent even if you're not told it, it's right there in the Fifth Amendment, but people don't know that. (And even so, it turns out you have to specifically say that you're invoking the right to remain silent, you can't just remain silent.)

> And yes, that website says they can search with probable cause, and it doesn't say that being suspected of having cash doesn't count.

“probable cause” is of a crime; possession of cash is not a crime.

First off, I don't know that for sure. (Do you know that for sure? Have you read every law and every binding precedent in your jurisdiction?)

Second, I'm not saying that possession of cash is a crime, I'm saying it might be probable cause of some other crime, such as dealing drugs or whatever.

Welcome to the central absurdity of Common Law.

Where the Statutes are nice and all, but it's the case law that makes up the majority of the iceberg. You can legally construct an argument with the right cherry picking to justify anything, and the court won't give you time to in the moment read up to ensure that what your opponent claims even makes sense.

You may be getting downvote d for seeming unwilling to "read the link" but you have a 100% sound point.

The law isn't worth the paper it is written on until a judge makes a decision on that particular case, which will be heavily dependent on the arguments prosecution and defense both bring. Which all happens after your encounter with Law Enforcement.

However...

I do want to encourage you that the right you do not assert in the encounter with Law enforcement does not contribute at all to an effective defense. Most reasonability tests only weigh what is said in the exchange to the point where you must clearly and unambiguously use certain legal "magic words" to dispel any illusion of muddied waters for the courts.

Think of it as a protocol.

A cop can stop you. You must accept the interruption.

Hello officer, how are you?

If they ask if you know why they stopped you.

"No sir, but I'm sure you're about to let me know."

You must provide identification if requested.

They must provide a reason for stopping you.

If they ask for consent to search the vehicle, your answer is "No, I do not consent. Are we done here? Or is there more I can help you with Officer?"

They should either respond with: "You are free to go." End transaction.

Or,

They will assert some justification for further detaining you. If they assert the smell of alcohol or drugs, or a need to breathalyze you, you must consent in most jurisdictions. If you do not consent to be breathalyzed there, or suspect their equipment, you are entitled to be transported to a medical facility to do a drug test to confirm or dispute the result.

If you've done nothing wrong, and you've gotten this far you are now playing paperwork chicken with this cop. They have paperwork to fill out, and you do not. On the other hand, cops are largely immune to the pain of paperwork from doing it day in, day out. If you have a phone, I recommend letting somebody know things are getting interesting, so they can echo it to your social circle. Even employers will usually understand this type of thing can happen. You still do not consent to having your vehicle searched. You inform the officer you'd like to call someone to come pick up the vehicle. If your phone is in your pocket, you tell them that and make sure they understand what you are doing, or allow them to get out the phone from where it is stored if they strike you as twitchy. I'd recommend only doing that as a last resort. Try if at all possible to never leave your phone somewhere a cop can clearly access on your person, or observe there is not a weapon hidden ahead of time.

Note: Miranda doesn't have to happen until you are formally under arrest. Don't jump the gun. DUI isn't confirmed until the test results are in. It's a pain.

After all of this...

"Am I free to go?"

If yes, end transaction. If no, God help you, the fates do not smile upon you this day. You will have the makings of an excellent harassment case if this continues for more than 24 hours without them either formally charging you with something, or letting you go.

Contrary to popular belief, cops are people too, and likely have an aversion to having their time wasted. If you get a malicious one, then as scary as the prospect is, the system is still people'd by reasonable folks.

ACAB isn't necessarily a given, but they are not your ally. Ever. Dealing with them is one step closer to having your life ruined. So always stick to protocol.

Be courteous. Follow protocol. They must justify their actions in an Official capacity. Make it as easy for them to finish the process. If you get into a failure state, just do everything in your power to make sure someone else knows.

He is a brilliant man, 86k is very cheap to not just treat but actually cure a psychological problem. Now he is not paranoid, the rest of us are just stupid.