Co-worker says it's illegal to have more than 10,000$ on your person?

[Chucktshoes]

brings a nostalgic tear to my eye

I know, right?

[npgunner]

Does that mean you snorted lines of coke from a strippers' ass?

Does that mean you don't?

[klamb5]

Last time I deposipted 5000 bank said it had to report any transaction 5000 or over

[TripleDigitRide]

Does that mean you don't?

Can you prove I did/do?

[TMF]

I agree with other things you have said, but remember a citation is issued in leu of an arrest. Yes, speeding is an arrest able offense. If their probable cause for the stop was an infraction and not just a suspicious vehicle they may very well arrest you after that statement.
I have known some TN Drug Task Force Agent's and when they take cash it is almost always honest to got true drug money. I will not give away how they know the origins of money but they have a very relible method. Honest people have nothing to fear.
When DTF stops a vehicle and suspect's drug trafficing it's over before the driver even knows what happened. A series of questions and the agent knows what's in the car and which process of the transportation it is in. Once again no one here has any reason to fear for the safety of their money, unless your trafficing.

I don't believe this at all, it has been proven false plenty of times. Any time police seize money and don't file any charges they are stealing. I saw a news story years ago where a reporter had random bills tested for traces of cocaine. A lot of circulated cash came up positive.

If the law is going to seize assets they need to be the ones to prove that the assets are the product of illegal activity. The onus is not on the citizen to prove he has legally obtained that money.

[Patton]

Last time I deposipted 5000 bank said it had to report any transaction 5000 or over

It is the descretion of the bank/teller, if they has a suspicion about you, the money, the account they can do it for $1. They are only required for any transaction $10,001 or over.

People that are driving their own vehicle, have their money in their wallet/purse, have somewhat reasonable explanation to why they have such a large amount of money have no reason to be affraid.

The people who have their money seized are a "man and wife" traveling together with id's from different states, who when interviewed seperatly tell you a different day in which they were married, the car is registered to neither one of them but it's their cousins. You interview them a little more and then the car belongs to a cousins friend who lives in FL but the car is registered to GA. You ask them for consent to search and they say, " no it isn't their car.". At this point they have essentially told you the contents of the car is not theirs.
Believe it or not this is how most of them go down. I will not give away any more information as to how the warrant is gathered or how they get consent. What I can tell you is that 95% of the people that have money seized say they didn't know it was there and they do not try to claim it later. The other 5% generally have some outlandish explanation for having the cash and will get it back.
Edit: I decided to not to share so much. Edited February 17, 2013 by Patton

[Patton]

Law Enforcement does not seize money because it smells like or has traces of drugs in it. That is an urban legend.

[Chucktshoes]

It is the descretion of the bank/teller, if they has a suspicion about you, the money, the account they can do it for $1. They are only required for any transaction $10,001 or over.
People that are driving their own vehicle, have their money in their wallet/purse, have somewhat reasonable explanation to why they have such a large amount of money have no reason to be affraid.
The people who have their money seized are a "man and wife" traveling together with id's from different states, who when interviewed seperatly tell you a different day in which they were married, the car is registered to neither one of them but it's their cousins. You interview them a little more and then the car belongs to a cousins friend who lives in FL but the car is registered to GA. You ask them for consent to search and they say, " no it isn't their car.". At this point they have essentially told you the contents of the car is not theirs.
Believe it or not this is how most of them go down. I will not give away any more information as to how the warrant is gathered or how they get consent. What I can tell you is that 95% of the people that have money seized say they didn't know it was there and they do not try to claim it later. The other 5% generally have some outlandish explanation for having the cash and will get it back.
Edit: I decided to not to share so much.

Yet more evidence that there is nothing to be gained by speaking to LE in a professional capacity.

[TripleDigitRide]

It is the descretion of the bank/teller, if they has a suspicion about you, the money, the account they can do it for $1. They are only required for any transaction $10,001 or over.

People that are driving their own vehicle, have their money in their wallet/purse, have somewhat reasonable explanation to why they have such a large amount of money have no reason to be affraid.

The people who have their money seized are a "man and wife" traveling together with id's from different states, who when interviewed seperatly tell you a different day in which they were married, the car is registered to neither one of them but it's their cousins. You interview them a little more and then the car belongs to a cousins friend who lives in FL but the car is registered to GA. You ask them for consent to search and they say, " no it isn't their car.". At this point they have essentially told you the contents of the car is not theirs.
Believe it or not this is how most of them go down. I will not give away any more information as to how the warrant is gathered or how they get consent. What I can tell you is that 95% of the people that have money seized say they didn't know it was there and they do not try to claim it later. The other 5% generally have some outlandish explanation for having the cash and will get it back.

I'd like to know actual figures regarding the number of vehicles they stop and harass compared to the number of of stops where they actually find something. I drive I-40 between Nashville and Dickson and I-24 between Nashville and Manchester on a very regular basis. This is where those Cocaine Cowboys are most active in this area. I see them searching vehicles on a daily basis, but they're only bragging on the local news every few months or so. Are they really that productive?

I happened to be stuck in a parking lot near the side of the interstate a few years ago. They already had this vehicle pulled over when I got there, but I watched the rest of the 2+ hour event unfold. They searched and searched, and even removed the seats from the vehicle right there on the side of the interstate. Although I can't say for are, it didn't appear they found anything, because the "suspects" ended up driving away when it was said and done.

Bottom line is, unless they have enough to prove a crime has been committed and arrest the person(s), they have zero right to take any property from anyone. No one wants the average citizen to distrust LEO, yet so many find it perfectly acceptable for LEO to assume everyone they come in contact with is guilty of something. The war on drugs is a complete waste of money, and if it didn't employ so many people, it would have been done away with a long time ago. It's been proven time and time again that they don't care about the drugs, only the money. Edited February 17, 2013 by TripleDigitRide

[Patton]

On a good seizure they normally have a tip as to what to be looking for. Of course they do get lucky. One of the best drug interdiction officers I have ever heard of was lucky to find one person carrying cash on e a month. He often would find drugs several times a month with or without cash. He was shot dead a few years back.

All of this is covered under the CAFRA act of 2000. Basically it states any money believed to be associated or tied to illegal activity can be seized for investigation. The person claiming interest in the money has ten days to file the appropriate paperwork. All of this is a civil matter. Being that it is a civil forfeiturer you are entitled to any and all attorney fees associated with your case if you win. You do have to show proof of where you got the money. Eg. Pay check stubs, lottery winnings, inheritance. What doesn't fly is when you claim on the side of the road that you have been saving since you were a baby and then in court you say you were given the money from a rich uncle to go to school. This is the kind of stuff they say.
Normally we are talking amounts in the 100k not $10k.
Also being that it is a civil forfeiture no arrest is required. Edited February 17, 2013 by Patton

[Chucktshoes]

On a good seizure they normally have a tip as to what to be looking for. Of course they do get lucky. One of the best drug interdiction officers I have ever heard of was lucky to find one person carrying cash on e a month. He often would find drugs several times a month with or without cash. He was shot dead a few years back.
All of this is covered under the CAFRA act of 2000. Basically it states any money believed to be associated or tied to illegal activity can be seized for investigation. The person claiming interest in the money has ten days to file the appropriate paperwork. All of this is a civil matter. Being that it is a civil matter of you when you are entitled to any and all attorney fees associated with your case. You do have to show proof of where you got the money. Eg. Pay check stubs, lottery winnings, inheritance. What doesn't fly is when you claim on the side of the road that you have been saving since you were a baby and then in court you say you were given the money from a rich uncle to go to school. This is the kind of stuff they say.
Normally we are talking amounts in the 100k not $10k.
Also being that it is a civil matter no arrest is required.

Legal plunder.

[Patton]

Oh, and we all have Bill Clinton to think for this whole ideal.

[TMF]

Law Enforcement does not seize money because it smells like or has traces of drugs in it. That is an urban legend.

 

Well that is the only reason I can assume LE would justify seizure of cash if there is no evidence other than the money itself.  It's one thing if there is hard evidence to back it up, but if the seizure comes without charges that tells me there is no evidence, or at least not sufficient evidence to file charges.  The presumption of innocence is supposed to be there until you are proven otherwise in a court of law, but to seize assets without there even being a judge involved is so insane I can't put it into words.  And then the process where you then have to PROVE that you obtained that cash through legal means is rediculous.  What is to keep police from taking the $100 bucks in my pocket and saying that I need to hire a lawyer to get it back?  Their good nature?  Sorry, I'll trust most LE, but like with any other profession there are still crappy people in the LE field.  Forgive me if I don't blindly trust that not one officer would abuse an unjust law.

 

I'm all about hitting drug traffickers where it hurts, but there have been clear abuses of this law.  Officers have been targeting out-of-state vehicles under the pretense of them fitting a certain description based on profiling or intelligence.  However, the flip side to this coin is that officers may inadvertently target out-of-state travelers who are not drug traffickers at all.  I travel across the country all the time by vehicle, and when I do I usually have at least 1k in cash on my person; usually more.  I don't think that is uncommon at all.  If my vehicles happens to fit a certain description, such as when I'm driving to Florida in my SUV, which rides low in the back due to luggage weight, weapons and ammunition (as I shoot a whole lot when I'm down there) I am now a target for LEOs.  If I am pulled over for a false reason (which one of the stories cited gives a perfect example of an officer lying as to why he pulled a vehicle over) and I am cooperative with the officer, allowing him to satisfy his curiousity since I have nothing to hide as a law abiding citizen I am, I am VERY likely to have the cash he finds on my person or in my luggage confiscated by this officer.  Since there are no laws broken, he will be unable to arrest me since there are no charges.  Now I have to hire a lawyer to get back that money, probably in a county that is a great distance from my own residence.  There is a greater likelihood that I'll say "f**k it, it isn't worth my time" rather than spend more time and money to get back what they took... at the convenience of the court. 

 

And what is the acceptable retort from the system?  "Well, if he legally obtained it then he should come fight to get it back.  Since he didn't, it's ours."

 

Sorry, not good enough.  This act is going to get out of hand because the latitude afforded to officers who lack the maturity to exercise their power appropriately. 

[Guest brighac]

You are just not allowed to travel across international borders with more than 10k

[klamb5]

It is the descretion of the bank/teller, if they has a suspicion about you, the money, the account they can do it for $1. They are only required for any transaction $10,001 or over.

People that are driving their own vehicle, have their money in their wallet/purse, have somewhat reasonable explanation to why they have such a large amount of money have no reason to be affraid.

The people who have their money seized are a "man and wife" traveling together with id's from different states, who when interviewed seperatly tell you a different day in which they were married, the car is registered to neither one of them but it's their cousins. You interview them a little more and then the car belongs to a cousins friend who lives in FL but the car is registered to GA. You ask them for consent to search and they say, " no it isn't their car.". At this point they have essentially told you the contents of the car is not theirs.
Believe it or not this is how most of them go down. I will not give away any more information as to how the warrant is gathered or how they get consent. What I can tell you is that 95% of the people that have money seized say they didn't know it was there and they do not try to claim it later. The other 5% generally have some outlandish explanation for having the cash and will get it back.
Edit: I decided to not to share so much.

No they pull out the reg's when I asked ,changed when all the banking laws changed after all the failing banks and such.

Edited February 17, 2013 by klamb5

[DaveTN]

Any time police seize money and don't file any charges they are stealing.

You are correct; seizing money without cause is done every day. I am all for it if there is a pending criminal investigation or arrest. But this should have a time limit and if no charges are filed they money should be returned, in full, to the owner. If the owner can’t give what investigators think is a good explanation; that is a matter for the IRS. Those guys are as good at taking down drug dealers as drug cops.

To me, it says something about the Chief or Sherriff, the DA’s office, and the state legislators that allow it. The two Chiefs I worked under didn’t allow it without an arrest or approval of the Chief of D’s for an on-going investigation.

Many cops now ask people if they have guns, drugs, or cash on them. Drugs are illegal, guns may or may not be illegal, but cash is not. It is none of their business unless they have probable cause to arrest you for something.

[ted]

Remember this http://www.newschannel5.com/story/18241221/man-loses-22000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case

[1morethan8]

Well, it's not a good idea to walk around with $10,000+ in your pocket... a straight line deal may be OK if you watch what your doing.

 

Know the laws.. but also know how to play the "game" in your favor. Watch your deposits and withdrawals and if you deal in larger sums of money, watch the paper trail. And remember, you can have several banking accounts.

 

Cash makes no enemies!

Edited February 17, 2013 by 1morethan8

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I agree with other things you have said, but remember a citation is issued in leu of an arrest. Yes, speeding is an arrest able offense. If their probable cause for the stop was an infraction and not just a suspicious vehicle they may very well arrest you after that statement.
I have known some TN Drug Task Force Agent's and when they take cash it is almost always honest to got true drug money. I will not give away how they know the origins of money but they have a very relible method. Honest people have nothing to fear.
When DTF stops a vehicle and suspect's drug trafficing it's over before the driver even knows what happened. A series of questions and the agent knows what's in the car and which process of the transportation it is in. Once again no one here has any reason to fear for the safety of their money, unless your trafficing.

Buy into that propaganda all you want. If they "suspect" drugs or it is from drug trafficking, they still have to have evidence of it.

They can't just pull you over and take your money, which has been the case, several times in Tennessee, by several police agencies.

If you fall for this, you are the idiot, not them. They are the crooks using a law that breaks their lawful authority.

 

I never said speeding wasn't an arrestable offense. I have never been arrested and have never had allowed a search, but never

been asked, either.

 

Have you ever heard of taking one's ability away to defend himself in a court of law? If you take away anyone's ability, say a

contractor, or a "suspected" drug trafficker, you are doing that very thing. If you have no resources to defend yourself, doesn't

that smack in the face of justice, or have we allowed something different to take place, other than constitutional protections.

Unreasonable searches and seizures? The presumption of innocence?

 

I'd rather take my chances in front of a judge, than a confiscating cop on the side of an interstate who needs some money for

his next raid on the donut case at Krisy Kreme or Dunkin Donuts.

 

Just because a drug enforcement told you something doesn't make it right, but now, let's obey those laws, okay? You still need

probable cause or a warrant for a "reasonable search". Otherwise, it's no one's business how much money you carry. And

assuming large amounts of money is drug related is nonsense. People go to sales all over this country every day and carry  cash.

Just one example, but I shouldn't feel the need to explain that, nor should you to any cop.

Edited February 17, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You are correct; seizing money without cause is done every day. I am all for it if there is a pending criminal investigation or arrest. But this should have a time limit and if no charges are filed they money should be returned, in full, to the owner. If the owner can’t give what investigators think is a good explanation; that is a matter for the IRS. Those guys are as good at taking down drug dealers as drug cops.

To me, it says something about the Chief or Sherriff, the DA’s office, and the state legislators that allow it. The two Chiefs I worked under didn’t allow it without an arrest or approval of the Chief of D’s for an on-going investigation.

Many cops now ask people if they have guns, drugs, or cash on them. Drugs are illegal, guns may or may not be illegal, but cash is not. It is none of their business unless they have probable cause to arrest you for something.

There used to be a level of proof to meet before something could be taken. It is now based solely on the officer's suspicion. Not much

proof, there. Suspicion is a bit on the edge, so is pending investigation, like that man who got raided and got his house, guns, dog

and whatever else ransacked. Yeh, guess I would be all for that, too, except that there are still no charges filed. Uh huh.

[Patton]

6.8-AR, I did leave out the fact police have consent to search upon making an arrest. It is called "search subject to apprehension". That is how telling the cop to kiss you a** over a broken tail-light or telling him you will not sign a ticket gets you a ticket to jail and your car searched whether you give consent or not. Also the police can search without consent any location in the vehicle reachable by the driver while still sitting in the drivers seat.
You guys have missed the point that the money is taken from people who most of the time are claiming it is not their vehicle and the cash is hidden in that vehicle. I am not saying that I totally agree with all aspects of their practice nor do I say that I agree with Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. I can tell you that it hits drug dealers where it hurts, their wallets. If you guys have that big of a problem with it get it changed. Clinton was primarily responsible for the mess. I wonder how the liberals feel about this?

[DaveTN]

Also the police can search without consent any location in the vehicle reachable by the driver while still sitting in the drivers seat.

When did that happen? My center console and glove box are both within my reach. A Police Officer can now search them with absolutely no PC?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He can impound it, but search it? Still needs a warrant. I didn't say anything about telling anyone to kiss mine or anyone's,

and you assume I would refuse to sign a ticket, when it says plain as day, "not an admission of guilt" on it. And you're missing the

point that it is unlawful to take from people without cause. There still needs to be a reason to search a vehicle, not just for the 

presumption of finding something.

 

I am always courteous to any cop who has ever pulled me over, mostly for those broken tail lights you mentioned. Anyone who

tells a cop to do something with an expletive is an idiot.

 

It should be pretty recognizable to a normal warm blooded person to ask why when an officer essentially asks, "papers, please".

He still needs a reason.

 

"Most of the time" may not concern you, but it is a slippery slope that can and is abused. I guess I haven't met this kind of police

officer.

 

Yes, the asset forfeiture and property seizure laws allow this kind of behavior, and until you push back on it, you will be abused

for no good reason. That law you appear to accept so openly will be your undoing. It breaks most ideas found in the Constitution

into little pieces of toilet paper.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

When did that happen? My center console and glove box are both within my reach. A Police Officer can now search them with absolutely no PC?

I don't think so, either.

[DaveTN]

He can impound it, but search it? Still needs a warrant.

You need probable cause to impound a vehicle if you are going to search it for something. If you are impounding it because of an arrest or license/registration/equipment violation you have to do an inventory search…. That’s where a lot of charges come from; no warrant required.