There was a lottery winner somewhere who casually carried a few hundred thousand with him in his pickup truck. Parked it in front of a strip club. It got stolen, thieves got his truck and money. May have recovered some, but lots of people thought it was foolish to do so. Even if that's anyone's right.
It's just an anecdote, and not trying to sway one way or the other.
These mid-USA civil asset forfeiture cases are definitely escalating. It's very wise to not carry cash across the USA on a road trip. Of course, banks are going to tell the Government if you transfer more than $10,000, but at least the paper trail is there in your statements if you had to justify it.
The best way to avoid civil asset forfeiture in a traffic stop is to just not ever answer any nosy questions the officer may ask.
When pulled over, never answer questions. You don't have to.
If the police officer asks you to remain once they've written the ticket, ask if you're being detained or if you're free to go. Once they've written the ticket, the stop is over, but aggressive police will try to fool people into thinking the stop is not over. The longer they can keep you there, the more pressure they can apply.
Is that really the practical/reasonable thing to do? It's also going to differ per state whether or not you can ignore their requests and not unnecessarily escalate the situation.
And if you did brake a traffic law, recieve the ticket. Say hey officer, sorry about that thing we both know I just did. If they probe further or try to search your car then stand your ground.
Watch the traffic stop video if it's a traffic stop. But watch the video I posted for everything else. If they are looking for a suspect, be very wary. Some cops ain't exactly looking for the right suspect, just anyone who can fit.
> Is that really the practical/reasonable thing to do? It's also going to differ per state whether or not you can ignore their requests and not unnecessarily escalate the situation.
The guy had the right to remain silent, and he exercised it appropriately. Usually the people in these stories do boneheaded shit that earn them their outcome.
He admitted nothing, so they brought in the dog and faked the results to justify a search. At that point his testimony doesn't really matter-- the dog gave them probable cause to search. He did everything he should have done in this situation, including standing his ground-- unfortuantely your rights have limits when the cop you're dealing with is bent.
The only boneheaded thing he did was to sign the waiver, which very clearly stated in bold letters that he was relinquishing his rights over the money.
I've been thinking about "don't talk to the police", updated for the smartphone era. Our phones record our words, our locations; it's a treasure trove of information, aka evidence. You can choose not to speak to the police, but can your phone choose not to speak?
Cops can't search your cell phone without your consent or a warrant. Given native encryption on modern phones, phones choosing not to speak is a problem that takes care of itself quite well-- hence all the recent nonsense about the government needing backdoors.
This might be a contentious question, but how did it come to this in US (likely not the only country suffering from problems with law enforcers), i.e best course of action would be to not talk to the police? I imagine if I were in say, Japan, I wouldn't have to worry about cops having it out for me (especially if I'm innocent).
You are naive if you assume police in any country have your best interests at heart. An individual cop might, but in general they are rewarded for catching criminals, not necessarily in cash but in promotions, awards, and perceived job performance with their superiors.
It’s not just the US, more laws get passed everywhere making more individual behavior illegal. It’s just too easy to catch you on something.
The reason you don't talk to cops in the US or Canada (and some other countries, I assume) is by law your refusal isn't taken as an indication of guilt. So you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Police interrogations aren't like normal conversations. Even if you're innocent, if you misspeak it goes on the record the way you said it. Think about how many times you've been in a normal conversation and had to go back and clarify something you just said. Your friends are going to give you the benefit of the doubt; a prosecutor can use that kind of thing to make it look like you're changing your story.
There are countries in which your refusal to answer questions can be a factor in determining your guilt at a later trial, so you have to answer questions. But that's not a good thing.
He needs an indisputable paper trail showing that the money was his. That’s a lot of cash and there’s little reason to keep all of your legitimate fiat savings in cash like that.
I’m not sure of how to read your post, but you seem to be implying that the burden is on him to prove that the money is his, when he wasn’t doing anything illegal by carrying it, and nobody has alleged otherwise.
He already said it wasn’t his and that he didn’t know how it was hidden in his car. Whether under duress or not, the authorities aren’t giving the money back as a result.
28 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 60.8 ms ] threadAnd why not? It's their money.
It's just an anecdote, and not trying to sway one way or the other.
When pulled over, never answer questions. You don't have to.
If the police officer asks you to remain once they've written the ticket, ask if you're being detained or if you're free to go. Once they've written the ticket, the stop is over, but aggressive police will try to fool people into thinking the stop is not over. The longer they can keep you there, the more pressure they can apply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
And if you did brake a traffic law, recieve the ticket. Say hey officer, sorry about that thing we both know I just did. If they probe further or try to search your car then stand your ground.
The guy had the right to remain silent, and he exercised it appropriately. Usually the people in these stories do boneheaded shit that earn them their outcome.
He admitted nothing, so they brought in the dog and faked the results to justify a search. At that point his testimony doesn't really matter-- the dog gave them probable cause to search. He did everything he should have done in this situation, including standing his ground-- unfortuantely your rights have limits when the cop you're dealing with is bent.
The only boneheaded thing he did was to sign the waiver, which very clearly stated in bold letters that he was relinquishing his rights over the money.
It’s not just the US, more laws get passed everywhere making more individual behavior illegal. It’s just too easy to catch you on something.
Police interrogations aren't like normal conversations. Even if you're innocent, if you misspeak it goes on the record the way you said it. Think about how many times you've been in a normal conversation and had to go back and clarify something you just said. Your friends are going to give you the benefit of the doubt; a prosecutor can use that kind of thing to make it look like you're changing your story.
There are countries in which your refusal to answer questions can be a factor in determining your guilt at a later trial, so you have to answer questions. But that's not a good thing.
>Parhamovich said the money was a friend’s.
Such proof is now needed.