Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

The Newspaper ^ | Staff

[Badray]

"Most dealerships will not accept over $9000 cash. If you want to buy a vehicle without credit you will usually have to pay with a combination of check, cash and multiple cashier checks all less than $9000 each."

I've worked in plenty of dealerships. Not only is that not true in my experience, but such a policy puts the store at risk of a charge of structuring a deal to avoid reporting cash payments.

[DB]

It is pretty depressing that so many, especially here, think if you have $100,000+ in cash you must be guilty of something.

And even worse that the government has the right to take it from you even if they have no evidence much less convict you of obtaining it illegally.

We've become a people that cower before the almighty nanny government. The simple truth is the government doesn't like cash. They try to discourage the use of it whenever possible. And the reason why? Because they want their share. And if you use cash they can't be sure that they are getting their share. So people have to be made afraid to use it. And clearly many now are...

[Badray]

It's $10,000 in a single transaction or a series of related transactions that trigger the requirement, but you are right that lesser amounts MAY be reported if deemed suspicious by the entity (store, bank, etc.) that takes the cash.

[Skooz]

This is insane.

[DeaconRed]

There is NOT a single person on the face of the earth who is more opposed to DRUGS than VOTER#537.
However; Having a lot of cash and NOTHING else is not a crime.
It could be a starting point for the police. They now have a suspect. They can now follow the suspect and if he or she is dealing in drugs--Wham arrest them with the goods and the others involved.
The problem as I see it is this: Large sums of cash is very tempting. Yes, even judges are human first.
If the courts make it this easy to "KEEP" cash with no charge against the "suspect".
Then we are in deep DO DO.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Washington, Sam Adams, Paul Revere, etc, had a perfect response to this kind of high-handed dealing.

You have as much chance today as the Kurds against Saddam Hussein.

[Paulus]

I wish I had that type of xpediency.

[halfright]

That's not true.

I bought a $34k car with a single personal check.

__>and my daughter saved her lil butt off and was detirmend to pay 16K cash for her first car. They took 16K in cash. She drove off the lot with a grin the size of Montana.

[sauropod]

This needs to be appealed.

[philman_36]

And yet there are still people who wonder why I, and many others, argue so strongly against the WOsD. It's incrementalism and it's working.
And a month from now, a year from now, they or someone just like them will be on these boards supporting these abominations to liberty.
No "fortune telling", just human nature.

[DB]

She must be a drug dealer!

Sorry - I had too...

Good for her!

[DB]

We've been in deep do do.

[DB]

I totally agree.

This is the one area were Reagan went seriously wrong.

[mo]

"The WOD has gone too far..."

On the contrary, some would say that it has gone just far enough....it is clear if you use cash, you may well be regarded an enemy of the state.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."

Wow, with this ruling it means Bill Gates should get the death penalty for drug activity.

[kittymyrib]

If the government can take the homes of US citizens because a corporation wants the land to build on, as was ruled by the SCOTUS in Kelo, why in the world should a non-citizen be surprised that the government can take cash away? There are no private property rights in the USA.

[Real Cynic No More]

Yeah, and if this had been 1500 cell phones, folks here would already have the suspect convicted and hanged.

[dirtboy]

I'm sure that any of us here at Free Republic could, if we were facing the possible loss of $125 grand, be able to satisfactorily demonstrate that we came by that money honestly

Yep, guilty until proven innocent. Lovely standard you have that turns the Constitutional one on its ear.

[Mojave]

From the decision:

The United States presented a number of factors which, taken together, demonstrated the Defendant currency had been exchanged for drugs: (1) the driver possessed a large amount of cash, mostly in twenty dollar bills, packaged and secreted in a manner consistent with drug proceeds; (2) the driver lied to the law enforcement officer about the presence of cash in the vehicle and about his own criminal history; (3) a drug dog alerted to the area of the vehicle where the defendant currency was located and alerted to the defendant currency itself, but did not alert to a controlled sample of currency; (4) the driver had traveled from California to Chicago on a one-way airline ticket purchased with cash; (5) the driver was returning in a car rented in another person’s name; (6) the driver’s story he traveled to Chicago to buy a commercial truck, using small bills, from a person whose name and address he did not know, was implausible.

[Sloth]

Never heard or read anything remotely similar. Source, other than delusion?

Treffner's "quote" comes from Capitol Hill Blue, the same people (er, person) who brought you Terry Wilkinson.