• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    It must be nice to have thousands of dollars and have no idea where it came from. But realistically it’s highly unlikely that you would walk around with it.

    Presumably you either were handed it in which case you know where you got it from, or you got it out of the bank in which case you must have a business or lottery winnings or inheritance you can point to.

    I cannot imagine any innocent scenario where you have vast of money (in currency form) of which you are unable to provide origin information on.

    • ASK_ME_ABOUT_LOOM@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the same argument as “you wouldn’t object to a search if you have nothing to hide.” The fact is that anyone walking around with thousands of dollars, however “nice” you imagine that to be, is entitled to do so without any explanation due to you or the government.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it’s common for cash. Anytime you buy anything very expensive, such as a house or you want to take out a fun contract you have to submit to anti money laundering searches. This is also true of physical cash.

        • ASK_ME_ABOUT_LOOM@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sorry, but you’re conflating “using” cash with “having” cash. I can’t speak to the rest of the world, but in the United States, the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights states that you’re to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. You can have any amount of money on your person for any reason you like, so long as you don’t do something illegal with it. These cops are stealing cash under the pretense that it could have been used for something illegal, which directly conflicts with the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. The sham they perpetrate is that it’s the cash being accused, not the person. It’s bullshit and they have no intention of doing anything other than keeping the cash.

          Want to withdraw all of your cash in dollar bills so that you can lay on it like a mattress? Legal, and cops shouldn’t have any claim to it.

          Want to withdraw all of your cash in golden dollar coins and try to swim in it like Scrooge McDuck? An ill-advised plan, considering how fucked the American healthcare system works, but legal, and once again, cops should have no claim to it.

          Just having property - cash, gold, diamonds, very small unicorn figurines, whatever - is not an illegal or even inherently suspicious act.

          Without probable cause, there’s no reason a government agent should ever be able to take any property from you.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        So they can advise where the cash comes from. The problem wasn’t carrying it it was not been able to give an adequate explanation as to its origin.

        • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The cops don’t care, they’ll claim you’re lying and take the cash anyway.

        • abraxas@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The possession of the money is treated as probable cause. The police are not tasked with finding the ultimate truth of things, just acting on probable cause.

          So you’re on the road with $10,000 in cash. The police find out. You tell them the true reason. They write it down, then seize the money because it was suspicious to you to carry $10,000 in cash.

          Then, of course, you can go petition to get the money back. At which time, you have to prove by a preponderance of evidence (the same bar as if you were suing them for damages) to get the money back.

        • this_1_is_mine@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          the explanation you get to give to the judge as you now get to fight for your money back. the police officer is under no obligation to even listen to you as he steals from you.