If I'm stopped & have 1 million dollars. Do I have to explain my cash to the police?

[astro]

Scenario - I’m stopped for a broken taillight or other small infraction. An officer asks to look in my car & I agree. He sees my briefcase with 1 million dollars in 100s in it.

He asks what’s up, and I just tell him I don’t trust banks. Assuming there is nothing else to hold me on but the taillight, can the police hold onto my money, or does he have to let me go on my way if I want to leave?

Also, am I obligated to “explain” my cash in any way to the police?

[Johnny_L.A]

Back in the '90s I heard about people driving expensive cars who were pulled over in some places. I remember one guy who had a large amount of cash ($50,000?). (IIRC the man said that he was going to a different city to buy a tractor, with cash.) The policeman/deupty said that driving an expensive car and having a large amount of cash was reasonable cause to believe the money and car were drug-related, since nobody carries that much cash unless he is a drug dealer. The car and cash were seized. I read several such stories at the time. The owners had to go to court and sue to get their property back, which might cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

I don’t have any cites on-hand, so I’m only going from memory. I haven’t heard about any such case recently. In any case, you’d do well to have compelling evidence that A) the money belongs to you; and B) that it was not ill-gotten.

[fisha]

Yes, you do.

[Gfactor]

The appellant resists this conclusion, insisting that the mere possession of a large, unexplained amount of cash, without more, cannot be the basis for heightened suspicion. As authority for this proposition, he cites Sokolow, in which the Supreme Court indicated that paying for an airline ticket with $2,100 in cash might be consistent with innocent travel. 490 U.S. at 9. Contrary to the appellant’s importunings, this statement does not mean that the possession of a large, unexplained sum of cash can never support reasonable suspicion.(6) The circumstances matter, as does the degree of intrusiveness of the continued detention. See Lopez-Lopez v. Aran, 844 F.2d 898, 905 (1st Cir. 1988) (explaining that the degree of intrusiveness of a stop must be proportional to the degree of suspicion that prompted the intrusion); United States v. Berryman, 717 F.2d 651, 657 (1st Cir. 1983) (similar). In the circumstances of this case, we rule that the discovery of the cash justified a brief period of additional questioning. Cf. Conrod v. Davis, 120 F.3d 92, 97 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that discovery of $6,000 cash in a suspect’s pocket and $4,000 in his suitcase furnished reasonable suspicion).

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/002230.html

Johnny L.A.: It looks like they still try this, but the basic rule seems to be:

But, what if a large amount of cash is found in the vehicle but no drugs are discovered. Are the vehicle and cash subject to forfeiture? Our courts have long held that the discovery of a large, unexplained sum of money, standing alone, does not constitute articulable suspicion of criminal activity which would justify its seizure.9 However, while the presence of such currency is insufficient by itself to demonstrate a connection to illegal activity, such a discovery, when taken together with other evidence of criminal activity, may provide probable cause to believe it is substantially connected to an illegal exchange of drugs.10 For example, a large sum found in a hidden compartment coupled with an alert on the cash by a drug dog may provide probable cause for seizure.

http://www.pacga.org/downloads/newsletters/new_GTP/GTP%20vol%203%20issue%201.pdf

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2002_app/25955-9&invol=3

But see, , U.S. v. $124,700, in U.S. Currency (8th Cir. 2006): http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/moneyseize.pdf (“Possession of a large sum of cash is “strong evidence” of a connection to drug activity”)

[Cluricaun]

Would 10k hundred dollar bills fit in your average briefcase?

[Balthisar]

You think you’d see more armored cars being pulled over. Or restaurant managers on their way to the night depositories. Or tourists. What’s the basis for “unexplained”?

[Jackknifed_Juggernaut]

@Cluricaun

Would 10k hundred dollar bills fit in your average briefcase?

Quite easily, I would guess. You can make stacks of 1,000 bills, which would be less than the interior width of the briefcase. And you should be able to lay these in rows of 5 and 5.

[minor7flat5]

@Cluricaun

Would 10k hundred dollar bills fit in your average briefcase?

I think so.

A brick of $1000 in ones freshly wrapped from the bank is about six inches tall or so.
You would need to place ten such bricks of Franklins in your briefcase.
I can easily picture two rows of five bricks, each neatly laying on its side, inside the average Briefcase. It wouldn’t be light.

[stuyguy]

@minor7flat5

I think so.

A brick of $1000 in ones freshly wrapped from the bank is about six inches tall or so.
You would need to place ten such bricks of Franklins in your briefcase.
I can easily picture two rows of five bricks, each neatly laying on its side, inside the average Briefcase. It wouldn’t be light.

IIRC, the highest denomination of circulating US currency is the $100 bill (aka Franklin), so I don’t think you’d be able to carry a stack of $1000s. In fact, having those $1000s would probably trigger just the sort of detainable suspicion the OP is asking about.

[yabob]

Takes a largish briefcase. The average slim case carried by your average lawyer probably wouldn’t hold it. Somebody illustrated it, here:

http://www.cockeyed.com/inside/million/million.html

Since he was simulating bills by cutting up printer paper, he might be a bit off, but he’s in the ballpark. 20 pounds of bills in one of those large metal attache cases is about right.

[SCSimmons]

@stuyguy

IIRC, the highest denomination of circulating US currency is the $100 bill (aka Franklin), so I don’t think you’d be able to carry a stack of $1000s. In fact, having those $1000s would probably trigger just the sort of detainable suspicion the OP is asking about.

He was talking about $100s, not $1000s. His example was a brick of 1000 $1 bills, something he had experience in handling. A brick of 1000 $100 bills, worth $100K, would be exactly the same size; and ten of those bricks would be worth $1M.

[DrDeth]

Mere possession is perfectly legal. As Gfactor said, it could be part of a pattern or other clues that would be considered suspicious.

Spending it would be a problem. In many industries, spending more that $10K in cash cause them to file a Form on the Cash transaction. Same thing (different form, a CTR) for transferring or depositing said cash.

[gotpasswords]

Yeah, the trick would be in doing anything with that cash. Moving $10,000 or more in cash at a bank will cause a cash transaction report (CTR) to be filed, and if the bank suspects anything funny, they’ll probably also put in an SAR or suspicious activity report.

It may be perfectly legal for you to have the cash, but accumulating or divesting it through typical legal methods will arouse suspicions and the Feds will know about it.

[Dinsdale]

@DrDeth

Spending it would be a problem. In many industries, spending more that $10K in cash cause them to file a Form on the Cash transaction. Same thing (different form, a CTR) for transferring or depositing said cash.

No cite easily at hand, but ISTR instances on which folks got in trouble for moving money in a manner apparently intended to avoid the $10G reporting requirement - multiple transfers of just under $10G for example. Not sure if that was considered a prosecutable offense in itself, or merely probable cause for additional investigation.

[yabob]

@DrDeth

Mere possession is perfectly legal. As Gfactor said, it could be part of a pattern or other clues that would be considered suspicious.

Spending it would be a problem. In many industries, spending more that $10K in cash cause them to file a Form on the Cash transaction. Same thing (different form, a CTR) for transferring or depositing said cash.

I think that depends on HOW you want to spend it. If you’re content to simply have your own free ATM for your walking around and grocery money for the rest of your life, it allows your legitimate money to build up faster for larger ticket items, or to be directed into income paying investments. Somebody’s going to have to look closely at your financial statements to realize that no money seems to be going out anywhere to buy day-to-day purchases. Even closer to realize that you are paying restaurant bills and bar tabs in cash, not that you just aren’t eating out much. And you are buying things like tickets to theater, concert or sporting events in cash as well, not that you’re just sitting at home watching the TV.

[zeno]

I remember seeing something on TV about cops in the American South pulling over young black guys and seizing quantities of money as small as $800. Furthermore these seizures were recorded by the mounted cameras in the police car.

I remember one cop telling a driver something to the effect, “Now you shouldn’t be carrying around this kind of money so I’m going to take it.” That was it and the guy couldn’t do anything about it. Maybe both the driver and the cop knew the driver was carrying drugs and the driver didn’t want the car searched. Hard to speculate.

[Gfactor]

@Dinsdale

No cite easily at hand, but ISTR instances on which folks got in trouble for moving money in a manner apparently intended to avoid the $10G reporting requirement - multiple transfers of just under $10G for example. Not sure if that was considered a prosecutable offense in itself, or merely probable cause for additional investigation.

Two banks visited by both Kim Quartemont and Richie Abner were actually required to file CTRs because Richie and Kim each went to different branches of the same bank. A transaction aggregating more than 10,000 at one bank in one day, even if split between two or more different branches of the bank and involving increments less than 10,000 each, constitutes a transaction requiring a CTR. Thus, the structured transaction here failed because of the overload; at least two CTRs were required by law. See United States v. Cure, 804 F.2d 625 (11th Cir. 1986) (culpability depends on whether bank was required to file CTR); United States v. Thompson, 603 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1979) (separate transactions were actually one transaction which required report).

United States v. Abner, 825 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1987): http://www.legalunderground.com/2004/02/i_was_ready_to_.html

[Gfactor]

@zeno

I remember seeing something on TV about cops in the American South pulling over young black guys and seizing quantities of money as small as $800.

I think this is the one you are talking about: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html

[FormerMarineGuy]

@dahfisheroo

Yes, you do.

Just curious as to what kind of answer/reply this is.

[ed]

Well, in the last link provided by Gfactor the poor guy lost only 124,000 dollars to the police for no other reason than having it, and it held up on appeal. I’d think that answers the question somewhat – it may be technically legal for you to carry it, but the police can very easily sue the item in civil forfeiture and take it.