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

[Patton]

I don't think so, either.

The center console, under the seat are all subject to search without consent. It actually is covered under a Terry search.

"Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of an automobile's interior, the officer discovers contraband other than weapons, he cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances."

Also see Michigan vs. Long Edited February 17, 2013 by Patton

[Patton]

Once an arrest has taken place the car is subject to search. It is now called inventory of the vehicle. Same creature, different name.

[DaveTN]

The center console, under the seat are all subject to search without consent. It actually is covered under a Terry search.

"Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of an automobile's interior, the officer discovers contraband other than weapons, he cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances."

Also see Michigan vs. Long

You can do anything you want, but Terry does not allow you to search my vehicle unless you articulate reasonable suspicious to believe there are weapons present. Of course plain view gives you a free pass and does not apply to what we are discussing. Michigan V Long was plain view.

I’m taking exception with the statement you can search anywhere in my vehicle I can reach. I don’t believe that you can without cause. Plain view is cause and I guess you could make the argument an HCP is also.

Cops before you searching without cause is how and why your hands are tied on the job now.

[DaveTN]

Once an arrest has taken place the car is subject to search. It is now called inventory of the vehicle. Same creature, different name.

Inventory search is because you are now in possession of the vehicle and are responsible for its contents. Officer safety has nothing to do with it. Does it allow a full blown search of the vehicle where everything found may be charged? Yes, it is as good as a warrant.

[Patton]

No your right, I normally only search a lunging area when a crime is involved, not an infraction like traffic violations.

However, the Supreme Court has ruled that an officer who is getting conflicting stories from the vehicles occupants has reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has taken place. This gives an officer more than enough for a terry search of the vehicle or to obtain a warrant. This incident occurs a lot.

Also a driver telling you something that you know is false is a good for asking the driver to step out. I have seen a car outside of a drug house and the guy told me he just came from Walmart, this is another reason to suspect something isn't right. Edited February 17, 2013 by Patton

[Guest AmericanWorkMule]

not right off the ass,
that is what those dimples are for!

traces of drugs and the sweat of a strippers ass. Does that mean you snorted lines of coke from a strippers' ass?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

And how is someone going to get their car impounded from a routine traffic stop? Being a total idiot? Maybe, but I doubt it. I don't

have any problem with an inventory, but I do have a problem with anyone at the roadside thinking he can run amok over my privacy

because I "might have something he considers illegal, and wants to seize all of my money", and I think you do, too.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And all of this preceding must be based on the assumption of guilt. Glad I don't hang around those types.

 

And all this came from someone saying he heard you couldn't have more than 10,000 bucks on you. Ha!

[Patton]

This has gotten a little out of hand. You don't have a reason to fear riding around with a little cash in your wallet, not from the police anyway. You do not want to ride around with $100k in the trunk of a car that is not yours with no proof of where it came from and no proof of what it is for. Actually, when money like this is seized the driver more often than not cant tell the police how much is there or they completly deny the money was there. The police would be a damn fool to give $32k back to a guy that doesn't own the car he's driving that says it isn't my money and I dont know where it came from. Don't hide $32k under the spare tire either.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If it's my car, I can put it where I want it, and can have a reasonable right to privacy, with all the money I need.

 

It's the unlawful activity at the side of an interstate that has spurred this discussion on and has been legitimized by

some misunderstanding people trying to justify different legitimate actions in different circumstances. Big difference.

[DaveTN]

And how is someone going to get their car impounded from a routine traffic stop?

DUI, suspended/revoked, warrant, traffic accident.

[RobertNashville]

Sometimes I read threads like this and all the back and forth about what law enforcement can and can't do/should or shouldn't do and I just have t shake my head and wonder what happened to our "free country"?

 

I also thank God that I've never run into law enforcement officers who act like some are described in threads like this...all the interactions I've had with LE have always been cordial and polite and at least led me to think that they respected my rights...maybe I've just been lucky.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

This has gotten a little out of hand. You don't have a reason to fear riding around with a little cash in your wallet, not from the police anyway. You do not want to ride around with $100k in the trunk of a car that is not yours with no proof of where it came from and no proof of what it is for. Actually, when money like this is seized the driver more often than not cant tell the police how much is there or they completly deny the money was there. The police would be a damn fool to give $32k back to a guy that doesn't own the car he's driving that says it isn't my money and I dont know where it came from. Don't hide $32k under the spare tire either.

 

Dunno, maybe I'm paranoid, but if I was gonna transport $32K of my own money, it would seem a pretty good idea to hide the money some place a smash-n-grab opportunist criminal won't find it if I stop at an exit for a cup of coffee or a pee break. I wouldn't be specifically hiding it from police. Hiding something valuable would seem simple common sense and ordinary behavior to be expected. Nothing unusual at all?

[Patton]

Sometimes I read threads like this and all the back and forth about what law enforcement can and can't do/should or shouldn't do and I just have t shake my head and wonder what happened to our "free country"?

I also thank God that I've never run into law enforcement officers who act like some are described in threads like this...all the interactions I've had with LE have always been cordial and polite and at least led me to think that they respected my rights...maybe I've just been lucky.

That is because we do respect your rights. A stop of a car with out of state plates, a driver with no relationship evidable to the cars owner, weird story of why they are going to a place, and a large amount of cash is a once in a career event for most of us. I am sure I have had one or two drug trafficers escape from my stops but most of the time these guys are really unlucky and really stupid.

[DaveTN]

This has gotten a little out of hand. You don't have a reason to fear riding around with a little cash in your wallet, not from the police anyway. You do not want to ride around with $100k in the trunk of a car that is not yours with no proof of where it came from and no proof of what it is for. Actually, when money like this is seized the driver more often than not cant tell the police how much is there or they completly deny the money was there. The police would be a damn fool to give $32k back to a guy that doesn't own the car he's driving that says it isn't my money and I dont know where it came from. Don't hide $32k under the spare tire either.

I disagree. I had thousands of dollars in my pocket when I went to North Carolina to buy a car. From what I have seen if I had been stopped on I-40 in Tennessee I could have very well been in danger of having my money seized if they ask me about cash and I answered truthfully. Cops that do that are thugs with badges, and are in the minority. You should be appalled at it. I blame the departments that allow it. They should be under investigation by the TBI and the FBI.

I didn’t know about this at the time. I wouldn’t do it now. Cops fighting on the roadside for territory? Come on, how does that just go away?

If I have 32K in cash on me and you don’t like my explanation; you get to seize it? Sorry, that is ridiculous.

[Patton]

Dunno, maybe I'm paranoid, but if I was gonna transport $32K of my own money, it would seem a pretty good idea to hide the money some place a smash-n-grab opportunist criminal won't find it if I stop at an exit for a cup of coffee or a pee break. I wouldn't be specifically hiding it from police. Hiding something valuable would seem simple common sense and ordinary behavior to be expected. Nothing unusual at all?

I wouldn't be too suspicious if I stopped you and it was your car(wife's, mother, son.etc) and you could tell me where the money was and how mic was there. These people get paid $300 to drive a car from FL to NY and are not told why. They do not know $32k is hidden under the spare tire, if they did they would take it.
Story time; I had a California Hwy Patrol friend who responded to a fatal wreck in southern California to find bales of marijuana and money blowing across the hwy from where the car was loaded. The driver pulled through but could give no explanation as to why they were driving the car or who the owner was. Police found out the owner of the car was paid $500 to register the car a mont before. She lived in the projects and was on welfare for her three kids. The driver was a SoCal University student, the passenger was ejected and died but had several convictions for narcotics violations. This is a pretty typical story.
Nowadays 18wheelers are the big targets and what drug runners are using. Putting a loaded car on a transport trailer is common also.

[DaveTN]

That is because we do respect your rights. A stop of a car with out of state plates, a driver with no relationship evidable to the cars owner, weird story of why they are going to a place, and a large amount of cash is a once in a career event for most of us. I am sure I have had one or two drug trafficers escape from my stops but most of the time these guys are really unlucky and really stupid.

It might be a once in a career opportunity if you are standing there with a wad of cash in your hands and an arrest on drug charges. But if you find yourself standing on the side of the road with a wad of cash in your hand, no charges to file, and the owner of the money being allowed to drive away; there is a problem.

I have no problem with seizing every single dime and asset a drug dealer has. But the law should require a criminal conviction to do it.

[Oh Shoot]

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

 

Like, every country in the world has that same law?

 

- OS

[Reservoir Dog]

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

 

Not true (at least in the United States).  You can take more the $10K across the US border.  Federal law only requires the you declare the money if you have more than $10K.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

DUI, suspended/revoked, warrant, traffic accident.

I agree. You knew what I meant, though. The otherwise law abiding driver.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It might be a once in a career opportunity if you are standing there with a wad of cash in your hands and an arrest on drug charges. But if you find yourself standing on the side of the road with a wad of cash in your hand, no charges to file, and the owner of the money being allowed to drive away; there is a problem.

I have no problem with seizing every single dime and asset a drug dealer has. But the law should require a criminal conviction to do it.

I carry it one step further. although I don't like the drug problem, I definitely do not like the idea of anyone taking away your

right to defense. That seizure you refer to is problematic when one is innocent until "proven" guilty. My biggest gripe with the

War on Drugs is that some of the laws written end up taking all of us in with it. That's dead wrong. i don't like drug dealers,

or anyone associated with the illicit drug trade, but side of the road justice doesn't answer the problem.

 

What's good for the goose...

[DaveTN]

I carry it one step further. although I don't like the drug problem, I definitely do not like the idea of anyone taking away your
right to defense. That seizure you refer to is problematic when one is innocent until "proven" guilty. My biggest gripe with the
War on Drugs is that some of the laws written end up taking all of us in with it. That's dead wrong. i don't like drug dealers,
or anyone associated with the illicit drug trade, but side of the road justice doesn't answer the problem.
 
What's good for the goose...

Whether you like it or not there has been no “innocent until proven guilty” any more than there is a right to “Bear Arms”, and it will continue to that way until people acknowledge that fact and quit spouting myths.

I put people in handcuffs, stuffed them in a car, towed their cars and took them to jail. They were booked into jail and if it was a misdemeanor they could bond out. If it was a felony, or they didn’t have the money to bond out they stayed in jail until they went before a Judge. As time passed they would go to court where they were allowed to try to convince a Judge or a Jury that they didn’t do what they were accused of.

If you think that means anyone is “innocent until proven guilty” or that you don’t have to prove your innocence to a Judge or jury… so be it. I don’t believe in fairy tales.

And it bothers me that parents teach their kids non-sense instead of knowing the law. Kids deserve a better education than some fairy tales about search warrants and what cops can and can’t do. Edited February 17, 2013 by DaveTN

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I wouldn't be too suspicious if I stopped you and it was your car(wife's, mother, son.etc) and you could tell me where the money was and how mic was there. These people get paid $300 to drive a car from FL to NY and are not told why. They do not know $32k is hidden under the spare tire, if they did they would take it.
Story time; I had a California Hwy Patrol friend who responded to a fatal wreck in southern California to find bales of marijuana and money blowing across the hwy from where the car was loaded. The driver pulled through but could give no explanation as to why they were driving the car or who the owner was. Police found out the owner of the car was paid $500 to register the car a mont before. She lived in the projects and was on welfare for her three kids. The driver was a SoCal University student, the passenger was ejected and died but had several convictions for narcotics violations. This is a pretty typical story.
Nowadays 18wheelers are the big targets and what drug runners are using. Putting a loaded car on a transport trailer is common also.

 

Thanks Patton. I just don't like cash money turned into defacto contraband, regardless of the source of the money.

 

From your messages here I get the impression you are a good egg and a sensible fella, but unfortunately not everybody has good sense. A few years ago a friend had a bad month or two of worry and annoyance over a lot less than $10,000. There is this little observatory somewhere down in rural N. GA, can't recall the location at the moment. A friend was driving down the rural road to the observatory. Middle aged half bald TVA programmer driving a late model car sunday afternoon. Deputy stopped him, no driving infraction or ticket issued, asked if he could search the car. Friend said OK fearing nothing. Deputy found pistol in glove compartment, 2 darvons in a dentists prescription bottle, and about $500 cash. They booked him, kept him a few hours, then let him out on bail and gave his car back, and he found his pistol unloaded locked in the trunk, but they kept his money because "drug dealers live on that road."

 

So I don't recall him saying the locals had to pay his lawyer fees. He worried about it for a month or two til the court date, then the lawyer got him off and got his money back, and he said he spent as much on legal fees as the money confiscated, not to mention the worry about the matter and a completely ruined weekend, but it was the principle of the thing. That setup was either the height of local police stupidity, or an intentional shake-down job, or both. Take yer pick.

 

After hearing my friend's woes, a couple years later drove to nashville to buy a telescope with a few thousand in my pocket, and it was a worry. There are lots of little podunk counties between chatt and nashville, and I figgered if it could happen to my friend it could just as easily happen to me.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Whether you like it or not there has been no “innocent until proven guilty” any more than there is a right to “Bear Arms”, and it will continue to that way until people acknowledge that fact and quit spouting myths.

I put people in handcuffs, stuffed them in a car, towed their cars and took them to jail. They were booked into jail and if it was a misdemeanor they could bond out. If it was a felony, or they didn’t have the money to bond out they stayed in jail until they went before a Judge. As time passed they would go to court where they were allowed to try to convince a Judge or a Jury that they didn’t do what they were accused of.

If you think that means anyone is “innocent until proven guilty” or that you don’t have to prove your innocence to a Judge or jury… so be it. I don’t believe in fairy tales.

And it bothers me that parents teach their kids non-sense instead of knowing the law. Kids deserve a better education than some fairy tales about search warrants and what cops can and can’t do.

You did those things because you had a reason to do them. I'm not questioning a legitimate stop, Dave, but I am questioning the

same thing I think you are. There is still innocence until proven guilty. It's just that some types of people carry the argument to the

extreme to make their point. If I was stopped daily, it might be problematic, but that isn't the case, and I have every right to expect

respectful and lawful treatment, like you do.

 

I think it's the thugs on the side of the interstate who are causing the problem, not you or I. And, instead of being investigated,

maybe they should look into their own practices before they become crooks, before they should be prosecuted and convicted.

 

But please don't confuse me by saying "Klatu, veranda, nicto", either. :D

[DaveTN]

You did those things because you had a reason to do them. I'm not questioning a legitimate stop, Dave, but I am questioning the
same thing I think you are. There is still innocence until proven guilty. It's just that some types of people carry the argument to the
extreme to make their point. If I was stopped daily, it might be problematic, but that isn't the case, and I have every right to expect
respectful and lawful treatment, like you do.
 
I think it's the thugs on the side of the interstate who are causing the problem, not you or I. And, instead of being investigated,
maybe they should look into their own practices before they become crooks, before they should be prosecuted and convicted.
 
But please don't confuse me by saying "Klatu, veranda, nicto", either. :D

There should be “innocent until proven guilty” and we should have a “Justice system”. But we don’t. If the cops arrest you and the DA charges you; good luck convincing a Judge or jury you are innocent. And even if you do, at what cost?

Justice? You will get as much “justice” as you can afford.

You know as well as anyone here that am I pro cop and makes no bones about it, unless they give me evidence otherwise. But I’ve been told many times I should write a book on surviving a traffic stop. It’s not about the cops; it’s about having our kids not listen to some civics teachers/parents mindless ramblings about a vehicle search requiring a warrant, or teaching kids not to do and say stupid things when they are stopped. Their whole futures are in jeopardy at that very minute in their life and they need to know what to do and what the law is. Not listen to someone that skipped over the word “Unreasonable” when they read the 4th amendment, or is telling them to invoke their right to remain silent without knowing the circumstances.