lotstodo
aka "The Jackal"
So the cops always say that you should let them search because you have nothing to hide right? Turn that around and say you should give us our due process because you can support your seizure in a court of law right?
In fact the right to appeal was actually added after several illegal seizures of cash from legitimate business people. It still operates on the guilty until proven innocent theory, one which we discarded when we wrote the constitution. Why should we make seizure of private property easier in the first place? If money is found with drugs, then the sheriff should be able to hold the money as evidence and then prosecute and seize the funds. But that's not what is happening. In some cases, they seize "drug money" without prosecuting the dealer because they don't have enough evidence to prosecute. But they don't need evidence to take the cash, and they know that the dealer won't complain. He may be an accused drug dealer, but he is as an American entitled to due process.
In other cases, agencies are systematically seizing cash during traffic stops, any and all cash beyond a certain amount, usually a few hundred dollars. If you are going to buy a car, or make a deposit at the bank, tough. You have to prove, sometimes many months later, that it was not the funds from an illegal activity.
Oh, and drug sniffing dogs? The handler can make them "alert" on command, or simply say that the dog alerted. A completely honest cop won't, but just how badly they want to search a vehicle sometimes factors in. Plus, as any LEO will tell you, 80% of the cash in circulation in America has enough drug residue on it to be detectible by a drug dog (look it up). Unfortunately for you, if you are carrying it, this is all that an unscrupulous, or mistaken agency needs to seize it, and to often sustain in a local court. Unfortunately, there is no set level for "unusual" amounts of residue.
In fact the right to appeal was actually added after several illegal seizures of cash from legitimate business people. It still operates on the guilty until proven innocent theory, one which we discarded when we wrote the constitution. Why should we make seizure of private property easier in the first place? If money is found with drugs, then the sheriff should be able to hold the money as evidence and then prosecute and seize the funds. But that's not what is happening. In some cases, they seize "drug money" without prosecuting the dealer because they don't have enough evidence to prosecute. But they don't need evidence to take the cash, and they know that the dealer won't complain. He may be an accused drug dealer, but he is as an American entitled to due process.
In other cases, agencies are systematically seizing cash during traffic stops, any and all cash beyond a certain amount, usually a few hundred dollars. If you are going to buy a car, or make a deposit at the bank, tough. You have to prove, sometimes many months later, that it was not the funds from an illegal activity.
Oh, and drug sniffing dogs? The handler can make them "alert" on command, or simply say that the dog alerted. A completely honest cop won't, but just how badly they want to search a vehicle sometimes factors in. Plus, as any LEO will tell you, 80% of the cash in circulation in America has enough drug residue on it to be detectible by a drug dog (look it up). Unfortunately for you, if you are carrying it, this is all that an unscrupulous, or mistaken agency needs to seize it, and to often sustain in a local court. Unfortunately, there is no set level for "unusual" amounts of residue.