Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

Skid Row Joe wrote:

rgatijnet1 wrote:
I sold one of my Classic cars and the man drove down from North Carolina and paid me $56,000 in cash.
I also have bought cars in different parts of the country and cash is the easiest/only way to buy something from a private party that will not take a check or credit card. Wire transfers cannot be done unless you have made prior arrangements with your bank, in person, before you left.
In any case, it is not against the law to carry any amount of cash in your RV as long as you do not try to leave the USA. There is also no law that says that you have to put your money in a bank, or even have a bank account. This is just to warn you of what may happen as you travel.

It's very dangerous to deal in large sums of cash. BTW, you're not correct on the seizure issue - it happens every day in every State, Do not carry around large sums - whatever that number is to you that you don't wish to have seized legally by LE.

I agree, it is dangerous, but that does not make it illegal. Also please tell me how law enforcement could legally seize the money that I received for selling my Classic car if I was carrying it with me, which I did do for a period of time. I should add that during a search of my coach, if I was on my way to Maryland, where my Son lives, I may be transporting several pistols, several rifles, and a few thousand rounds of ammo.
I understand that it happens and I understand the comment from a former officer that taking the profit from criminal activities is a good tool to use but how does that justify the police doing it to everyone that they suspect may be committing a crime because they are found to be carrying a large amount of cash?

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.

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.

DSDP Don wrote:
Wow.....Are some of you THAT naïve. This was a dope dealer. They stopped him, but didn't find dope. This doesn't just happen to Joe citizen driving down the road. How many of you drive around with $167K stashed in your vehicle. Suddenly, many of you have made him out as a full timer enjoying his retirement when he gets caught up with the police for no reason.....really!!!

I guarantee that if you could see the driver's record, he has a long list of dope convictions. This article is printed from the side of the driver, where law enforcement is never asked or is not willing to discuss the case, but the media likes to print what looks like an outrageous story.

This is a defense version of the story and is no different than what you hear from a mass murderer's defense attorney. Telling you he was a choir boy and model citizen.

Yup. The article says the first officer suspected there was cash stashed and there was. There was some evidence to make him think that. Like maybe the guys rap sheet along with statements he may have made and who knows what else. The money was not ordered returned to him because he proved it was legal money. It was returned because the judge didn't like how law enforcement worked together to find the money.

tatest wrote:
It is hard to believe because you shouldn't believe it. Note that the driver was not cited forgoing too slow. That was just given as an excuse for a stop made for other purposes (suspicion) which were not convenient to put into the record.

I worked as a patrol cop for many years of my law enforcement career. I didn't keep exact track, but I do know that I gave more warnings than I gave tickets on traffic stops. The fact he didn't write a ticket means nothing.

down home wrote:

boondockdad wrote:
Amazing.

Since the first trooper couldn't detain him without any reasonable articulated suspicion, they pull him over 50 minutes down the road?!

The whole thing should have been thrown out of court, and those "officers" severely disciplined.

"Civil Forfeiture" is one of those concepts that absolutely flies in the face of the Constitution.

I don't think there anyone that disagrees with you. This was seen and is as a gold mine by many jurisdictions even though, the People say, it is illegal.

I disagree with him. Although there have been abuses of the civil forfeiture system by some agencies, taking the profit out of criminal activity is a great tool. And although I suspect the money in this case came from drug activity, money and property have been seized a lot from white collar criminals too. When you run a Ponzi scheme that rips off people for millions of dollars, don't you think when you get caught law enforcement should be able to come in and seize your assets?

gbopp wrote:

rgatijnet1 wrote:

gbopp wrote:
There's two sides to every story. :W

You are right, which is what happened when it went to court. Both sides gave their story and the court ORDERED the money returned to the rightful owner. Now the state does not want to abide by the court order nor do they want to pay the court costs. So yes there are two sides and the court determined who was right. :R

What I found interesting is, a Nevada State Trooper made the initial traffic stop.
A County Sheriff made the second stop.
The Federal Government seized the cash, were ordered to return it and, filed an appeal with no explanation.

It just sounds like we need to hear "the rest of the story." Something seems to be missing.
Please post again if you see another article on this, it's interesting.

In large seizures like this it is very common for the Feds to handle the seizure. Federal courts have a better system for doing this, and bringing to the Federal system also allows the US Attorney's office to access things such as IRS records, Bank records, and other such financial records in order to prove if the cash is legitimate gains or not. Somebody who has $167k in cash in their motorhome should have no problem showing that it is all legitimate cash, assuming it is.

wa8yxm wrote:

Second: I know for a fact that even in relative law abiding (As far as police are concerned) states such as Michigan there have been seminars on "How to confiscate cash or houses even if NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS SUSPECTED"

Can you expand this. Do you have a link to such a seminar or a link on anything to support this? I happen to have a lot of experience in this particular area and have never heard of any law enforcement agency trained to seize anything "If no criminal activity is suspected." In fact the only reason to try and seize anything is if in fact criminal activity is suspected. Now there are civil seizure laws that allow property to be seized even if no criminal charges are brought, but not if no criminal activity is suspected.

toedtoes wrote:

gbopp wrote:

2oldman wrote:

Golden_HVAC wrote:
When was driving slow a reason to pull someone over?

Sounds like a contrived 'probable cause'.

Is there a posted minimum speed on Interstate 80 in Nevada?
I have not driven there in many years so, I don't know.

Driving too slow is usually considered under the "unsafe driving" type laws. There is no set speed at which it is considered "unsafe" - that depends on road conditions, congestion, traffic conditions, etc. (and the officer's opinion).

As for this situation, I wonder how the officer suspected "he was hiding cash" - that to me would be the bigger issue - as how would you ever look at someone and/or their vehicle and think "oh yeah, he's hiding cash in there". Sounds like someone made that suspicion based on the appearance of the driver.

He suspected it and it was true. So my guess is there is much more to the story than what is in this article.

jwmII wrote:
That Police mentality again.

Those darn cops, trying to take the profit out of criminal activity. The nerve of them fighting crime.