Illegal to carry lots of money??

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

So, in this article, a guy was caught for having over 8 grand and a digital scale. Sure, he may have been using the scale for drugs or something, I guess, and the money might have been from drug transactions, but let's not jump the gun here. They can suspect all they want, but neither the money, nor the scale (at least I don't think so) are in and of themselves illegal, so what is he being held on? He might be a scumbag, but this is ridiculous.
This sentence bugs me the most:

Police said possessing a large amount of currency under suspicious circumstances violates the law.

I mean what the fuck. So, it's not illegal for me to own a matchbook but a large amount of said legal item is suddenly illegal?

It reminds me of this case where a guy was arrested for carrying cash at the airport.

What do you all think?

 

[Holdfast]

I don't know the US legal system, but I would bet a large amount of money that it is entirely legal to carry the aforesaid amount of money on your person.

However, I can also see that the police would be able to use that large amount of money as a "reasonable" reason to investigate further, searching you/your car, asking you to provide documentation of where you got it from, using it as evidence for a judge to obtain further search warrants, etc, etc, etc. They may also be able to temporarily confiscate it (under your federal drug laws), pending your proving it is actually yours and obtained by legal means.

But carrying it? Not illegal (I would think).

 

[wew]

^Bingo. In fact your money is essentially arrested but has no rights. It can be very difficult to get your money back.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

What would give them a right to conduct a search? Or even act on suspicion. Having something that is not in and of itself illegal is not a crime, so why would having lots of that thing be illegal?

 

[RoJoHen]

Not illegal, but potentially suspicious. I mean, I don't care. My dad carries around a minumum of $2,000 cash in the breast pocket of his shirt everywhere he goes, and he says he's been doing that since he was 18. It's not even in a wallet or anything. It's just a wad of cash, which is he carries in the event of an emergency. He certainly wouldn't be able to provide documentation about where it came from...it's just his money!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

If the guy had no actual drugs but he had drug paraphernalia, then I could understand the actions of the police. That said, I don't know if the scale in question would be considered as such. Sure, he might have used it to weigh drugs, but if the scale has other, practical applications, I'm against his arrest for simply having a scale and money because, while they both could suggest intentions, that is merely circumstantial and is based on suspicion. They'd have to find harder evidence.

What bugs me is the quote I've highlighted, that it is illegal to have large amounts of currency under suspicious circumstances. I think that is a violation of a citizen's privacy and must be justified by more than (well, it is a lot of money, and he has a scale."

 

[Holdfast]

Personally, I agree with you. But then, I quite strongly believe that it's much better for criminals to escape justice than to convict innocent men. But that's not really a sentiment shared by most of the population in either of our countries and the current laws reflect the majority feeling of the population that "there's no smoke without fire" and further investigation in these circumstances should be essential.

To be honest, on this particular topic, they're probably right with that sentiment - in this day and age, carrying more than several thousand dollars in cash without an easy papertrail leading to a bank withdrawal within the last few days or so, would be unusual to say the least. I still would say agree that it shouldn't be illegal (and I don't think it is) and also that it shouldn't be confiscated. But hey, I suspect we're a minority opinion on this one.

 

[RoJoHen]

Personally, I agree with you. But then, I quite strongly believe that it's much better for criminals to escape justice than to convict innocent men. But that's not really a sentiment shared by most of the population in either of our countries and the current laws reflect the majority feeling of the population that "there's no smoke without fire" and further investigation in these circumstances should be essential.

To be honest, on this particular topic, they're probably right with that sentiment - in this day and age, carrying more than several thousand dollars in cash without an easy papertrail leading to a bank withdrawal within the last few days or so, would be unusual to say the least. I still would say agree that it shouldn't be illegal (and I don't think it is) and also that it shouldn't be confiscated. But hey, I suspect we're a minority opinion on this one.

I agree with you. It's "innocent until proven guilty," not "innocent until you do something weird."

The cops are the ones who need to prove that you did something. You shouldn't need to prove that you didn't.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I believe there is a limit of being allowed to carry no more than $10,000 US dollars for international flights into or out of the US without declaring it, which you can do either at the airport or in advance by filling out a form and showing paperwork explaining the money's origin. That rule doesn't apply to domestic flights however with the exception of Alaska IIRC since you're usually required to overfly Canadian airspace to get there unless you're leaving from the West Coast.

So, there's no reason that the gentlemen in either of the cases mentioned in the OP should have been detained on domestic flights with dollar amounts less than even the legal limit for international flights, which is why in the second case as soon as someone who actually knew what he was talking about showed up to correct the TSA officers they had to let the kid go and board the plane.

You know one reason people have digital scales? To easily count large sums of cash. I'm seeing a possible connection here. There are any number of reasons to carry large sums of cash, from selling books and merchandise like the kid in the video to taking a trip to Vegas.

Now, on the one hand you could say that the kid in the video could have avoided all that trouble and been allowed to board if he had simply answered the question about where the money came from, but just as it's not against the law to carry a lot of cash it's not against the law to act like a tool if you're correct about what your rights are.

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

So, in this article, a guy was caught for having over 8 grand and a digital scale.

Maybe a link to the article would be helpful. Was the guy in a high drug area, was he behaving suspiciously, what were the conditions/ denominations of the bills - fresh, crisp $100's or well used small bills with nothing bigger than a $20, did his answers not make sense? There's any number of reasons the police could have gone further with the questioning, but just carrying large amounts of cash in and of itself is legal.

It reminds me of this case where a guy was arrested for carrying cash at the airport.

That was just pure TSA (Thousands Standing Around) mission creep. Since they've shown they're spectacularly bad at preventing guns and knives from getting into the "sterile" area of the airport, they have expanded their mission to look for the "big score" to get positive press and justify their existence and expansion.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I'm sorry I forgot to do the link.

Here!

David Burke, 28, of Rochester, N.Y., was found with $8,240 in currency and a digital scale when state police stopped his vehicle at 10:50 a.m. Thursday on Interstate 380 South in Coolbaugh Township.
Police searched the vehicle with Burke's permission and found the money and scale in a void in the center console. Police said possessing a large amount of currency under suspicious circumstances violates the law.
Burke will appear in district court at a future date.

 

[snakespeare]

Did the money smell like a skunk? Growers tend to stash their enormous stacks of 20's in their growing location. I know of a growlight store that has a layer of keef in the bottom of their cash drawer from all the smelly money that has come through. I'm sure the cops could take this 8K and the scale to a Lab and find tetrahydrocannabinol. So, do they have just cause to seize it and hold the man? I think in the USA they have 48 hours to hold him for mere suspicion, and you and I both know what he's doing, so why shouldn't the cops be suspicious, too? And no doubt someone else in the past has been a suspect merely for having money he can't account for, so that must be, in Pennsylvania, just cause.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

We might suspect what he was doing, but that is not enough to violate his rights for having two legal items. and note again, what I highlighted about possessing a large amount of currency under suspicious circumstances violates the law.The sentence is awfully cavalier to me.

 

[Lindley]

Yes, well, that's hardly an official court document. It's a reporter's interpretation of something said to him by an unnamed "police". Sounds rather vague to get worked up over.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Fair enough. But I still hate the cavalier way that these police officers and reporters treat a person's rights. Sure they may in fact be criminals, but whether they are or they aren't, you gotta be very careful with how you treat their rights, and their mindset is all wrong.

That is why I was against that show To Catch a Predator. Sure, the show and the police forces the show worked with probably made sure that what they were doing fell short enough of being entrapment, and yeah they were criminals just by chatting online and stepping out the door.. yeah maybe that is the case, but their cavalier attitude about the way they treated these guys bugged me. I mean, if these guys were being questioned in the homes, they should have been read their miranda rights.

 

[snakespeare]

I thought so, too. Perhaps the reporter meant to write that a large sum of money in the posession of someone with no visible means of support is sufficient grounds to hold him until arraignment.

 

[bigdaddy]

Police in the USA have any power they wish, look at the fucker cop at the DC snowball fight who drew a gun.

If a cop doesn't like you they can arrest you for whatever they want, and when you resist being arrested for any reason then they will charge you with resisting arrest. i have seen it several times, it's sickening, that's all they will be charged with because the police had no right to arrest them.

it's why guns, even missile launches meed to be legal in this country, protect yourself or violent revolution.

 

[John Picard]

Police in the USA have any power they wish,

No, they don't.

look at the fucker cop at the DC snowball fight who drew a gun.

I believe he was disciplined and/or terminated. One bad cap does not represent the group as a whole.

If a cop doesn't like you they can arrest you for whatever they want,

No, he cannot. He has to have a reason.

and when you resist being arrested for any reason then they will charge you with resisting arrest. i have seen it several times, it's sickening, that's all they will be charged with because the police had no right to arrest them.

"Seen it several times"? Let me guess -- friends of yours got out of line with the police in the past, resisted arrest and then claimed innocence.

it's why guns, even missile launches meed to be legal in this country, protect yourself or violent revolution.

That closing statement was for effect, right?

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

Fair enough. But I still hate the cavalier way that these police officers and reporters treat a person's rights. Sure they may in fact be criminals, but whether they are or they aren't, you gotta be very careful with how you treat their rights, and their mindset is all wrong.

That is why I was against that show To Catch a Predator. Sure, the show and the police forces the show worked with probably made sure that what they were doing fell short enough of being entrapment, and yeah they were criminals just by chatting online and stepping out the door.. yeah maybe that is the case, but their cavalier attitude about the way they treated these guys bugged me. I mean, if these guys were being questioned in the homes, they should have been read their miranda rights.

The thing I didn't like about the show was that the people they were going to meet didn't even exist. There was never any real thirteen year old girl at the house or online. Basically you're arresting people for their thoughts. It's like, I could have the intent to murder Spider-Man, but he doesn't really exist. If I believe that he does, does that mean I'm guilty of intent to murder? Seems kind of sketchy to me. That being said, the show had its' moments, and I couldn't help but enjoy it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Not just their thoughts, their intent. There's a difference.

Everyone knows Spider-Man doesn't exist (so there can't be intent there), but real underage kids do (so there can be, in that case).

To Catch A Predator isn't entrapment because the offender is always the one who brings up the subject of sex. The decoy never does.