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

[Mr.Slant]

Very good idea to keep your $100,000 in a locked container in the trunk. Less good idea to keep it on your person or in your passenger compartment.

[Spiff]

@Mr. Slant

Very good idea to keep your $100,000 in a locked container in the trunk.

Yabbut, there’s no room in the trunk, what with all the bodies, you know…

[DrDeth]

@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.

Right, that gets another form- a “SAR” filed.

[control-z]

@Mr. Slant

Very good idea to keep your $100,000 in a locked container in the trunk. Less good idea to keep it on your person or in your passenger compartment.

Yes, to quote Jay-Z in 99 Problems:

“Well my glove compartment is locked, so is the trunk in the back
And I know my rights so you gon’ need a warrant for that”

Who woulda thunk you could learn something from a rap song?

[diggleblop]

@Cluricaun

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

I have no problem doing it.

[RickJay]

@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.

Jesus, that’s awful. I don’t understand how such things can be legal in light of the Fifth Amendment.

[Little_Nemo]

One more factor: I’m pretty sure there are laws about taking high amounts of currency across international borders. So if you’re planning on taking a day trip to Niagara Falls or Tiajuana, you’d probably want to take a credit card rather than a million dollars in cash.

[Kalhoun]

What gives them the right to take it without proof that it was ill-gotten? Why couldn’t you have stashed money over the years (so no documentation of a single bank withdrawal is required) and simply have it in a briefcase? Why isn’t the burden of proof on them? I don’t get it.

[Gfactor]

@control-z

Yes, to quote Jay-Z in 99 Problems:

“Well my glove compartment is locked, so is the trunk in the back
And I know my rights so you gon’ need a warrant for that”

Who woulda thunk you could learn something from a rap song?

While police need probable cause to search the trunk, and possibly a locked glove compartment (http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/4th-amendment-roadmap-podcasts/transcripts/terry-stop-frisk.html (unlocked glove box can be searched on articulable suspicion); but see, http://www.kscourts.org/CA10/cases/2004/03/03-5115.htm (permitting search of locked glove box)) especially, they don’t need a warrant.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_8_74/ai_n15966238

[T]he guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.

CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v. Charles R. CARNEY.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9610561.html

[Gfactor]

@RickJay

Jesus, that’s awful. I don’t understand how such things can be legal in light of the Fifth Amendment.

When property has been seized pursuant to the criminal laws or subjected to in rem forfeiture proceedings, such deprivations are not “takings” for which the owner is entitled to compensation.

Acadia Technology v. Global Win Technology (Fed. Cir. 2006): Georgetown Law Library | Georgetown Law Library | Georgetown Law

The government may not be required to compensate an owner for property which it has already lawfully acquired under the exercise of governmental authority other than the power of eminent domain.

Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442, 452-53 (1996): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/516/442.html

[Mr.Slant]

@Spiff

Yabbut, there’s no room in the trunk, what with all the bodies, you know…

“Officer, the money in my trunk is merely the proceeds of my cash sales of Soylent Green!”

[Sunspace]

@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.

(bolding mine) Sue the item?

[Gfactor]

@Sunspace

(bolding mine) Sue the item?

The United States initiated civil forfeiture proceedings against $124,700 in United States currency

moneyseize.pdf

You see, civil forfeiture proceedings are in rem.

*In rem * refers to a legal action directed solely against the property based on a legal finding that the property itself is used in an illegal manner. An in rem proceeding is not an action against a violator, but against the property involved. In rem proceedings are separate legal actions from any criminal action taken against the violator.

Front page | U.S. Department of the Treasury.

[Gfactor]

@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.

BTW, the court relied on more than just “having it,” although not much more:

Possession of a large sum of cash is “strong evidence” of a connection to drug activity, $84,615 in U.S. Currency, 379 F.3d at 501-02, and Gonzolez was carrying the very large sum of $124,700. The currency was concealed in aluminum foil inside a cooler, and while an innocent traveler might theoretically carry more than $100,000 in cash across country and seek to conceal funds from would-be thieves on the highway, we have adopted the common-sense view that bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking. $117,920.00 in U.S. Currency, 413 F.3d at 829. The canine alert also supports the
connection. Id.

The route and circumstances of Gonzolez’s travel were highly suspicious. Gonzolez had flown on a one-way ticket, which we have previously acknowledged is evidence in favor of forfeiture, see United States v. U.S. Currency in the Amount of $150,660.00, 980 F.2d 1200, 1206 (8th Cir. 1992), and he gave a vague explanation, attributed to advice from an unidentified third person, about why he elected to return by car. Gonzolez purportedly carried $125,000 in cash with him on his flight, for the purpose of buying a truck that he had never seen, from a third party whom he had never met, with the help of a friend whose name he could not recall at trial. This testimony does not inspire confidence in the innocence of the conduct. When he was stopped by the Nebraska State Patrol, Gonzolez was driving a rental car that was leased in the name of another person who was not present, another circumstance that gives rise to suspicion. Then, when Gonzolez was questioned by officers, he lied about having money in the car and about the names of his friends, thus giving further reason to question the legitimacy of the currency’s presence. See $117,920.00 in U.S. Currency, 413 F.3d at 829. **The totality of these circumstances – the large amount of concealed currency, the strange travel pattern, the inability to identify a key party in the purported innocent transaction, the unusual rental car papers, the canine alert, and the false statements to law enforcement officers ** – leads most naturally to the inference that Gonzolez was involved in illegal drug activity, and that the currency was substantially connected to it.

While the claimants’ explanation for these circumstances may be “plausible,” we think it is unlikely. We therefore conclude that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant currency was substantially connected to a narcotics offense. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

(Emphasis added.) *Id. *

I’m not arguing the court got the right answer, but it was relying on more than the claimant just having a bunch of cash.

[Uncommon_Sense]

@Kalhoun

What gives them the right to take it without proof that it was ill-gotten? Why couldn’t you have stashed money over the years (so no documentation of a single bank withdrawal is required) and simply have it in a briefcase? Why isn’t the burden of proof on them? I don’t get it.

This deserves a bump.

[Gfactor]

@Kalhoun

What gives them the right to take it without proof that it was ill-gotten? Why couldn’t you have stashed money over the years (so no documentation of a single bank withdrawal is required) and simply have it in a briefcase? Why isn’t the burden of proof on them? I don’t get it.

This statute and other statutes like it: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000981----000-.html

And they do have to offer proof, just not very much:

@the statute

(b)
(1) Except as provided in section 985, any property subject to forfeiture to the United States under subsection (a) may be seized by the Attorney General and, in the case of property involved in a violation investigated by the Secretary of the Treasury or the United States Postal Service, the property may also be seized by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Postal Service, respectively.
(2) Seizures pursuant to this section shall be made pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as provided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, except that a seizure may be made without a warrant if—
(A) a complaint for forfeiture has been filed in the United States district court and the court issued an arrest warrant in rem pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims;
(B) there is probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture and—
(i) the seizure is made pursuant to a lawful arrest or search; or
(ii) another exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement would apply; or
(C) the property was lawfully seized by a State or local law enforcement agency and transferred to a Federal agency.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a seizure warrant may be issued pursuant to this subsection by a judicial officer in any district in which a forfeiture action against the property may be filed under section 1355 (b) of title 28, and may be executed in any district in which the property is found, or transmitted to the central authority of any foreign state for service in accordance with any treaty or other international agreement. Any motion for the return of property seized under this section shall be filed in the district court in which the seizure warrant was issued or in the district court for the district in which the property was seized.
(4)
(A) If any person is arrested or charged in a foreign country in connection with an offense that would give rise to the forfeiture of property in the United States under this section or under the Controlled Substances Act, the Attorney General may apply to any Federal judge or magistrate judge in the district in which the property is located for an ex parte order restraining the property subject to forfeiture for not more than 30 days, except that the time may be extended for good cause shown at a hearing conducted in the manner provided in rule 43(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(B) The application for the restraining order shall set forth the nature and circumstances of the foreign charges and the basis for belief that the person arrested or charged has property in the United States that would be subject to forfeiture, and shall contain a statement that the restraining order is needed to preserve the availability of property for such time as is necessary to receive evidence from the foreign country or elsewhere in support of probable cause for the seizure of the property under this subsection.
(c) Property taken or detained under this section shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Postal Service, as the case may be, subject only to the orders and decrees of the court or the official having jurisdiction thereof. Whenever property is seized under this subsection, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Postal Service, as the case may be, may—
(1) place the property under seal;
(2) remove the property to a place designated by him; or
(3) require that the General Services Administration take custody of the property and remove it, if practicable, to an appropriate location for disposition in accordance with law.
(d) For purposes of this section, the provisions of the customs laws relating to the seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture, condemnation of property for violation of the customs laws, the disposition of such property or the proceeds from the sale of such property under this section, the remission or mitigation of such forfeitures, and the compromise of claims (19 U.S.C. 1602 et seq.), insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this section, shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under this section, except that such duties as are imposed upon the customs officer or any other person with respect to the seizure and forfeiture of property under the customs laws shall be performed with respect to seizures and forfeitures of property under this section by such officers, agents, or other persons as may be authorized or designated for that purpose by the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Postal Service, as the case may be. The Attorney General shall have sole responsibility for disposing of petitions for remission or mitigation with respect to property involved in a judicial forfeiture proceeding.

Other procedures are in section 983: 18 U.S. Code § 983 - General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Here is a chart that summarizes the procedural changes imposed by the Civil Asset Forfeiture Act of 2000 (mentioned in the Frontline episode): http://www.unclefed.com/ForTaxProfs/irs-wd/2001/0106001.pdf

Here is a discussion of the burden of proof:

@Chart

Current Process
Government required to make initial showing of
probable cause the property is subject to forfeiture.
Burden then shifts to owner to establish property’s
innocence and prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, property is not subject to forfeiture.

New Process
The burden is on the government by a
preponderance of the evidence. Probable cause
needed for seizure but will not suffice for forfeiture.
Only burden on the claimant is to prove he/she is an
innocent owner.

[Telemark]

Og bless you Gfactor for answering these detailed legal questions with fully supported cites.

[griffin1977]

This has actually bugged me about these kind of laws, maybe one of the legal dopers out there can enlighten me… How do these forfiture laws NOT constitute unreasonable search and seizure if it is only based on the SUSPICISION guilt rather than than proof of guilt in a court of law?

I by no means an expert on such matters… But considering some of the seemingly “borderline” rulings judges seem to make on such matters (that to a layman do not seem to directly contradict the consitution) it amazes me something like this that so obviously goes against the spirit and letter of the constitution is allowed to stand.

[Johnny_L.A]

The canine alert also supports the connection.

I’ve heard that most U.S. paper money has cocaine residue on it. (The way I heard it is that someone might use a double sawbuck to snort a line, and it eventually winds up in a counting machine where residual coke contaminates other bills, and so on…) Is this true?

If it is true, isn’t claiming that the dogs detected cocaine on the money disingenuous?

[Gfactor]

@Johnny L.A.

I’ve heard that most U.S. paper money has cocaine residue on it. (The way I heard it is that someone might use a double sawbuck to snort a line, and it eventually winds up in a counting machine where residual coke contaminates other bills, and so on…) Is this true?

If it is true, isn’t claiming that the dogs detected cocaine on the money disingenuous?

True: Does Most U.S. Currency Bear Traces of Cocaine? | Snopes.com (some of the cases talk about this too)

Here, the only evidence linking the seized money to illegal drug activity is canine sniff that alerted officers to the presence of narcotics on the currency itself and the exterior of the rear passenger side of the rental car where the currency was discovered. However, as Justice Souter recently recognized, a large percentage of currency presently in circulation contains trace amounts of narcotics. See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 410-12 (2005) (Souter, J. dissenting). As a result, this fact is virtually “meaningless and likely quite prejudicial.” United States v. Carr, 25 F.3d 1194, 1216 (3d Cir. 1994) (Becker, J., concurring). Our decision in $84,615 in U.S. currency to afford this evidence only “slight” weight is thus well-founded, and this factor, taken in conjunction with the large amount of currency seized, does not favor forfeiture. Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

$124,700, in U.S. Currency, (Lay, J. dissenting)

So it’s a close one, and I’m not saying I agree with the majority, but that’s the way these cases sometimes go.