4 ms·
> That's not how the legal system works (or he'd be already in jail) and it is already a broken system. You'd need proof to convict him. I don't understand you
by defen 5y ago
> That's not how the legal system works (or he'd be already in jail) and it is already a broken system. You'd need proof to convict him.
I don't understand your comment. I'm not suggesting that the DEA agent should be able to put him in jail. I'm saying they should not be allowed to just seize the cash. I'm asking if people think it would be ok for them to apply for a warrant to check his email/phone records based on the info they have (man carrying $30,000 cash with an unlikely explanation), and if it would be ok for a judge to approve that warrant. A search warrant doesn't mean he gets arrested.
- runako 5y ago> carrying $30,000 cash with an unlikely explanation "Unlikely" in _your_ experience. Your suggestion is a prescription for the police going on fishing expeditions of the poor and unlucky who are least able to defend themselves. (Poor people are more likely to use cash for everything, and less likely to have alternatives.) Just because you're not arresting them doesn't mean it isn't harassment.
- csomar 5y agoFair enough. A warrant issued by a judge that is required for every case is good enough.