This comment reveals a common misunderstanding of the concept of probable cause (which is what you really mean by “reasonable doubt”, I think).
Well, to be fair, they are both “legal terms” and I’m just trying to be conversational. What I mean is that they have their HONEST suspisions before they even find the money that something’s not right. I understand there are some roads in the US that are VERY popular drug running routes and the cops can be rather agressive with some people they pull over. If you have a large sum of cash that is legitimate you may be risking it simply by driving those roads. Not that I think that is right, but you gotta ask yourself how many people who are NOT drug dealers carry large sums of cash. And what are the odds of them getting pulled over AND SEARCHED on one of these roads.
Then there was the black elderly woman after hurricane andrew who was driving west with her life savings to buy building material to fix her damaged home (because local lumberyards were gouging the buyers). But then even in that case does her story hold water? I certainly would not have needed to do that to buy building materials.
IOW, even these “unfair” stories we hear about may not be all that unfair. I like to say that they got Al Capone on tax evasion. What if the parents in the op were CLEARLY part of the drug thing but the cops could not prove it?
But again, none of my info is first hand, and I’ve read plenty of stories about people who were clearly victims of the police and won their court case. But each case is unique and both sides really do need to be heard.
And the cops should be treated like robbers when they get caught.
“Not that I think that is right, but you gotta ask yourself how many people who are NOT drug dealers carry large sums of cash. And what are the odds of them getting pulled over AND SEARCHED on one of these roads.”
Well, my point is that it isn’t right, and it isn’t even legally proper for police to performing most of those searches in the first place. It doesn’t matter if the route is commonly used by drug dealers, unless they have a reasonable suspicion, specifically pertaining to you, that you are a drug dealer, then they have no authority to search, and so they should never find the cash in the first place.
The problem is that police are well aware that if they can trick or intimidate someone into giving consent, then it doesn’t matter whether the search would otherwise be illegal. So, they’ve developed an artform of getting citizens to waive their rights, instead of simply performing their duties within the bounds of the law. That’s very problematic for various reasons, for example, once they get into that mentality, they will be more likely to try to bend the rules in all sorts of other ways, as they are already in the habit of justifying such things to themselves as a means to “get the job done”.
“IOW, even these “unfair” stories we hear about may not be all that unfair. I like to say that they got Al Capone on tax evasion. What if the parents in the op were CLEARLY part of the drug thing but the cops could not prove it?”
Well, if they couldn’t prove it, then they should get more evidence, or leave the parents alone. The job of the police is not to deliver justice, it is to investigate crimes and apprehend criminals. If their investigation doesn’t yield evidence, then they should act appropriately and treat the people as innocent, not as criminals.
Are you suggesting that if the cops can't prove guilt and get a conviction by a jury in court they should be able to administer "Justice" on their own?