3 ms·

> The stop was a pretext to ask Stephen about his trip, and “a bunch of silly questions,” like “[are there] any large amounts of United States currency in the v

• richk449 5y ago
  > Haha, what a silly question...except the guy actually did have a large amount of United States currency in the vehicle. Either that cop is the world's luckiest guesser, or they had some reason to think he had a bunch of cash in his car. … or he asks everyone that he pulls over that question.
  • jacksonkmarley 5y ago
    Seemed weirdly specific to me, but I guess in certain areas with lots of drug sales or whatever it could be more generally applicable.
    • Jtsummers 5y ago
      In jurisdictions that make heavy use of civil forfeiture, it’s a standard question. It’s unfortunately common in some small towns and low population counties as it’s a large chunk of their funding.
      • jacksonkmarley 5y ago
        That certainly puts a different light on how I was looking at the topic.
    • robbedpeter 5y ago
      It's fucking Nevada. They already knew exactly which Dea agent to call. These asshats probably troll for gamblers and steal much lower amounts all the time.
    • macNchz 5y ago
      The incentives are aligned for cops to ask the question as much as possible–if their local department gets to keep a good chunk of the seized money, that’s more in the bank to pay for all sorts of stuff, including additional overtime hours aka money directly in the officers pockets.
• ectopod 5y ago
  > Either that cop is the world's luckiest guesser, or they had some reason to think he had a bunch of cash in his car. Have you heard of parallel construction? Perhaps he and his wife had discussed the cash in private messages. > Not sure why he couldn't just send the bank receipts he already showed the cop to the DEA or whatever. If he did this (and he may have done) why do you think they would give him his money back?
  • jacksonkmarley 5y ago
    > Have you heard of parallel construction? Perhaps he and his wife had discussed the cash in private messages. That's why I said they had some other reason to think he had cash. > If he did this (and he may have done) why do you think they would give him his money back? As the article explained, if he can provide evidence of how he came by the money legally, he gets it back. Otherwise the federal government is breaking the law, no?
    • bombcar 5y ago
      Guilty until proven innocent is a much simpler system it’s true.
    • simiones 5y ago
      > As the article explained, if he can provide evidence of how he came by the money legally, he gets it back. Otherwise the federal government is breaking the law, no? Even on the face of it, that is a blatant violation of the presumption of innocence and it boggles the mind that this is deemed constitutional in the USA. Even the 90 day term is wildly unacceptable for taking someone's possessions without a clear cause - perhaps 90 minutes?