4 ms·

>Police justified the searches in some cases by saying the driver was nervous or “their carotid artery was pulsating.” In one case, troopers seized $50,282 afte

>Police justified the searches in some cases by saying the driver was nervous or “their carotid artery was pulsating.” In one case, troopers seized $50,282 after a traffic stop and charged the owner of the vehicle, who was not present at the time. In another, they took $525 from a passenger. Judges ultimately dismissed the charges in both cases, finding the searches were illegal. The state returned the $525 but kept $20,000 in the other case. >The state returned the $525 but kept $20,000 in the other case. >kept $20,000 https://www.inquirer.com/crime/spl/pa-state-police-traffic-stops-forfeiture-seizure-illegal-searches-20201001.html https://www.inquirer.com/crime/spl/pa-state-police-traffic-s... I don't see myself ever needing to carry that much cash, but if I did, my carotid artery would be "pulsating" too.

jfrunyon 5y ago
The fact that police can use subjective, undocumentable, unprovable (and undisprovable!) allegations as evidence is pretty damn bonkers. Especially given that the burden of proof is meant to be on the accuser.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
> kept $20,000 Its like I am reading report from the high-sea piracy
mywittyname 5y ago
I do wonder how the police get lucky so often. Statistically, it seems like the police would very rarely, if ever, catch a person traveling with a lot of cash. First, a person would need to be pulled over (granted, isn't that rare), then the police would need to think to search the vehicle (they certainly aren't searching every out-of-town vehicle that is pulled over). Yet, somehow they are managing to collect billions each year from civil asset forfeiture. I suspect, without any proof what-so-ever, that police get records of large cash deposits/withdraws from banks and that information is available to them during traffic stops. These kind of cases happen too frequently to be chance, IMHO. There must be some kind of a priori knowledge available to the officers. Especially when they are nicking people going to pick up used cars from out-of-state or something.
- wearywanderer 5y ago
  Cops ask people they pull over if they have any weapons or cash in the vehicle, and people are either intimidated or naive enough to answer truthfully. The last time I was pulled over, years ago, I had about $50 in my wallet and the cop asked me if I had any cash. He was visibly annoyed when I responded with "uh, your asking me if I have a wallet?" and gesticulated with the wallet I already had in my hands to show him my ID. He could already see that I had cash in my wallet, but that's not what he was asking about.
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    Such a fun question. "No officer", then he decides you're lying and searches you/the vehicle for "officer safety" and finds the cash. Boom, now you lied about the cash and that's suspicious so the car and cash is seized and you end up in jail for the night or left on the side of the road with no car or money. Answer "yes" and now it's a series of questions about the money of which none of it is the cop's goddamn business, and if you feel it's none of his business, boom, you're "acting suspiciously" and cash is seized and you end up in jail for the night or left on the side of the road with no car or money.
- quantified 5y ago
  They get lucky when it’s there. There is no reporting of cash that’s grabbed when none is found. So I think sampling bias is part of it.
- craftinator 5y ago
  > I suspect, without any proof what-so-ever, that police get records of large cash deposits/withdraws from banks and that information is available to them during traffic stops. That's how I'd do it if I were in charge of a well funded gang of thieves!
- lazide 5y ago
  Searches of ‘suspicious vehicles’ (aka whoever a cop wants to search) is pretty common - it would be a rare officer who doesn’t find an excuse to do it once every shift or two. Requesting searches (and getting permission), or drug-dogs ‘alerting’ at will to provide probable cause is surprisingly effective, however police usually pride themselves on their ability to produce probable cause for stops and searches, and it is a rare driver who doesn’t make it pretty easy on them. Add a decent number of general cash transactions happening overall and if anything it’s surprising CAF numbers aren’t bigger. I suspect a lot of the ‘seizures’ go unreported as they know the party won’t try to report it/fill out paperwork.
sneak 5y ago
What if you want to buy something for five figures but don't want to upload your tracklog to the FBI's warrantless mass surveillance system? All credit/debit card swipes get fed into the FBI in realtime without a warrant, since 2010: https://www.wired.com/2010/12/realtime/ https://www.wired.com/2010/12/realtime/ All of your purchase locations and timestamps are put in your cop file.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  Could it be that this is precisely the reason they're encouraged to do it? This way y'all move towards a cashless society where the state has a bigger visibility into the money flows. In Italy it's already illegal to use cash for payments bigger than 2000 eu. What makes the US situation silly is that they could say "here is a new law, big cash transactions are illegal" instead they're formally legal but they treat you like a criminal if you happen to do it (effectively discouraging any citizen who has "nothing to hide" to just prefer traceable money transfer methods). Somebody should push legislators to just make a clear-cut decision. It's either legal or illegal.
  - sneak 5y ago
    > In Italy it's already illegal to use cash for payments bigger than 2000 eu. That's sad. Fortunately, it will be somewhat hard to enforce. I tried buying my car in the USA in cash. Surprisingly, while it was legal, the dealership denied me.
    - novok 5y ago
      Still gotta report that over $10k cash transaction: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understand-how-to-report-large-cash-transactions https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understand-how-to-report-large-...

jfrunyon 5y ago

The fact that police can use subjective, undocumentable, unprovable (and undisprovable!) allegations as evidence is pretty damn bonkers. Especially given that the burden of proof is meant to be on the accuser.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

> kept $20,000 Its like I am reading report from the high-sea piracy

mywittyname 5y ago

I do wonder how the police get lucky so often. Statistically, it seems like the police would very rarely, if ever, catch a person traveling with a lot of cash. First, a person would need to be pulled over (granted, isn't that rare), then the police would need to think to search the vehicle (they certainly aren't searching every out-of-town vehicle that is pulled over). Yet, somehow they are managing to collect billions each year from civil asset forfeiture. I suspect, without any proof what-so-ever, that police get records of large cash deposits/withdraws from banks and that information is available to them during traffic stops. These kind of cases happen too frequently to be chance, IMHO. There must be some kind of a priori knowledge available to the officers. Especially when they are nicking people going to pick up used cars from out-of-state or something.

wearywanderer 5y ago
Cops ask people they pull over if they have any weapons or cash in the vehicle, and people are either intimidated or naive enough to answer truthfully. The last time I was pulled over, years ago, I had about $50 in my wallet and the cop asked me if I had any cash. He was visibly annoyed when I responded with "uh, your asking me if I have a wallet?" and gesticulated with the wallet I already had in my hands to show him my ID. He could already see that I had cash in my wallet, but that's not what he was asking about.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Such a fun question. "No officer", then he decides you're lying and searches you/the vehicle for "officer safety" and finds the cash. Boom, now you lied about the cash and that's suspicious so the car and cash is seized and you end up in jail for the night or left on the side of the road with no car or money. Answer "yes" and now it's a series of questions about the money of which none of it is the cop's goddamn business, and if you feel it's none of his business, boom, you're "acting suspiciously" and cash is seized and you end up in jail for the night or left on the side of the road with no car or money.
quantified 5y ago
They get lucky when it’s there. There is no reporting of cash that’s grabbed when none is found. So I think sampling bias is part of it.
craftinator 5y ago
> I suspect, without any proof what-so-ever, that police get records of large cash deposits/withdraws from banks and that information is available to them during traffic stops. That's how I'd do it if I were in charge of a well funded gang of thieves!
lazide 5y ago
Searches of ‘suspicious vehicles’ (aka whoever a cop wants to search) is pretty common - it would be a rare officer who doesn’t find an excuse to do it once every shift or two. Requesting searches (and getting permission), or drug-dogs ‘alerting’ at will to provide probable cause is surprisingly effective, however police usually pride themselves on their ability to produce probable cause for stops and searches, and it is a rare driver who doesn’t make it pretty easy on them. Add a decent number of general cash transactions happening overall and if anything it’s surprising CAF numbers aren’t bigger. I suspect a lot of the ‘seizures’ go unreported as they know the party won’t try to report it/fill out paperwork.

sneak 5y ago

What if you want to buy something for five figures but don't want to upload your tracklog to the FBI's warrantless mass surveillance system? All credit/debit card swipes get fed into the FBI in realtime without a warrant, since 2010: https://www.wired.com/2010/12/realtime/ https://www.wired.com/2010/12/realtime/ All of your purchase locations and timestamps are put in your cop file.

ithkuil 5y ago
Could it be that this is precisely the reason they're encouraged to do it? This way y'all move towards a cashless society where the state has a bigger visibility into the money flows. In Italy it's already illegal to use cash for payments bigger than 2000 eu. What makes the US situation silly is that they could say "here is a new law, big cash transactions are illegal" instead they're formally legal but they treat you like a criminal if you happen to do it (effectively discouraging any citizen who has "nothing to hide" to just prefer traceable money transfer methods). Somebody should push legislators to just make a clear-cut decision. It's either legal or illegal.
- sneak 5y ago
  > In Italy it's already illegal to use cash for payments bigger than 2000 eu. That's sad. Fortunately, it will be somewhat hard to enforce. I tried buying my car in the USA in cash. Surprisingly, while it was legal, the dealership denied me.
  - novok 5y ago
    Still gotta report that over $10k cash transaction: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understand-how-to-report-large-cash-transactions https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understand-how-to-report-large-...