Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80
This just goes to show how things can escalate to a huge problem when you are just driving along minding your own business. Kinda hard to believe this goes on. Motor home stopped for going too slow
Forum Discussion
msmith1199 wrote:
The judges decision on this case is available on line. The search was conducted with a search warrant. Also located during the search were "pay-owe" sheets. The pay-owe sheets are not described in the ruling, but what those are is basically financial records that drug dealers keep of their customers and who owes what. Normally hand written on a piece of paper and in many cases very easy to tell what they are referring to.
The case was overturned because the Supreme Court made a ruling after this case was initiated that changed the rules on law enforcement detentions during a traffic stop. So in the opinion of the Judge, what the cops did may have been legal at the time they did it, but after the Supreme Court ruling after the fact, it was no longer legal. The subject in question refused to answer questions about the source of the money. He worked selling paddle boards for a company in Maui, according to him.
All of that is all fine and dandy, BUT, he was NOT convicted of any crime because of this stop. Can you give me one good reason why ANYONE should ever have to prove where they got the money they are carrying? Isn't it still INNOCENT until proven guilty?
Please state the law that limits the amount of cash that you can carry?
Please state the law that requires you to prove that the money you are carrying was legally earned?
People squirrel away cash for all kinds of reason. I know my parents had several thousand in cash hidden in their house that we found after they had passed. How do you prove where that money came from? Why should you have to?
I understand that the guy probably was a drug dealer and that he may have had numerous previous convictions but isn't it part of the law that EACH infraction is judged separately and that a persons previous criminal activity is not supposed to influence a courts ruling on the current case?
It sounds like the officers ASSUMED he was guilty of something and then set about trying to fabricate reasons to support their assumptions. The court agreed with the defendant and the locals still do not want to abide by the court's ruling and return the money. As the story headline states, he was NEVER charged with a crime, so obviously he was never convicted of a crime in this case, in spite of the police officer's best efforts.
