Speeding in Washinton State can cost you $276,000

[Resolute 14]

Not a great excuse by this British Columbia man...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...eeding25m.html

[worth]

I tell you what, if i've got 1/4 million dollars, drugs, illegal immigrants, guns or anything else sketchy/illegal in my car, i'm setting the cruise control to the speed limit, making sure to come to complete stops and using my signals as to not get pulled over.

[Dan02]

unless theres evidence of something illegal going on what gives the police the right to seize all that money??? Whats to stop em from taking the 200 bucks outta my wallet?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Dan02

unless theres evidence of something illegal going on what gives the police the right to seize all that money??? Whats to stop em from taking the 200 bucks outta my wallet?

As the article stated it is being held pending an investigation. If they cannot prove that it is proceeds of crime I suspect they will have to give it back.

My concerns are on how legit the search was? Was it voluntary?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

My concerns are on how legit the search was? Was it voluntary?

This was my first thought too.

But also, unless the article isn't giving a complete account (very possible) - can they actually seize property like that if you can't prove how you got it? Could they come into my home to discuss a noise complaint and take my tv cause i threw out the receipt and couldn't prove where and when i bought it?

i admit that carrying that much cash does look at a tad suspicious but still... same principle would apply i would think otherwise where do you draw the line?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

This was my first thought too.

But also, unless the article isn't giving a complete account (very possible) - can they actually seize property like that if you can't prove how you got it? Could they come into my home to discuss a noise complaint and take my tv cause i threw out the receipt and couldn't prove where and when i bought it?

i admit that carrying that much cash does look at a tad suspicious but still... same principle would apply i would think otherwise where do you draw the line?

If they can prove something was aquired with proceeds of crime then they could seize it (according to the law of that state). Maybe this money is legit and if it is they would have to give it back. It is not normal for someone to travel with a 1/4 million dollars in a brief case in their vehicle. If the guy gave permission for the officer to search the vehicle and he found it.....I think it would be reasonable to believe that it was obtained by crime.

Having a police officer enter your home to investigate a noise complaint and then seize your tv because he believes it proceeds of crime in not reasonable.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Having a police officer enter your home to investigate a noise complaint and then seize your tv because he believes it proceeds of crime in not reasonable.

well.... what if my home was a $30,000 trailer and my tv was a $9,000 60" plasma tv, blu-ray & hd-dvd, ps3, $5,000 stereo system, $3,000 media centre computer, all out fancy fancy leather furniture, etc, etc, etc.... you get the idea.... not a 'normal' setup for a person in a trailer park.

would the cops have the right to hold it until you could prove when and where you bought it all from and where you got the money without accusing you of or at least saying there was something particular you were under the suspicion of? it could be possible that there was a particular suspicion and it wasn't reported....

i don't necissarily disagree with the cops' decision here - just curious about where the line is that they can say "hey, that's too expensive for you to own legally" or "hey, that's too much money, it must be stolen"

[Temporary_User]

Well I think since this happened in the States, and this man was Canadian, having this amount of $$ without a valid reason is against the law. I know whenever i cross the border they always ask if I have more than $10,000 (somewhere around there). It is allowable to have more than that, although you have to state that you have such.
My assumption is that the search was voluntary, basically if a cop asks to search, you really have to say yes to it, otherwise they become even more suspicious. what do you have to hide type thing?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

well.... what if my home was a $30,000 trailer and my tv was a $9,000 60" plasma tv, blu-ray & hd-dvd, ps3, $5,000 stereo system, $3,000 media centre computer, all out fancy fancy leather furniture, etc, etc, etc.... you get the idea.... not a 'normal' setup for a person in a trailer park.

would the cops have the right to hold it until you could prove when and where you bought it all from and where you got the money without accusing you of or at least saying there was something particular you were under the suspicion of? it could be possible that there was a particular suspicion and it wasn't reported....

i don't necissarily disagree with the cops' decision here - just curious about where the line is that they can say "hey, that's too expensive for you to own legally" or "hey, that's too much money, it must be stolen"

Well you obviously haven't been in some of the modern trailer parks. What seems unreasonable to you would seem normal to some retirees. Don't take the Trailer Park Boys as representing all trailer park inhabitants.
Me, I don't live in a trailer park but I take, you or some cop deciding what's reasonable, as an invasion of my privacy. If I want to carry large amounts of cash or not is nobodies business.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well you obviously haven't been in some of the modern trailer parks. What seems unreasonable to you would seem normal to some retirees. Don't take the Trailer Park Boys as representing all trailer park inhabitants.

I dunno about what trailer parks are like out there but around these parts $30,000 doesn't get you much of a trailer.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Me, I don't live in a trailer park but I take, you or some cop deciding what's reasonable, as an invasion of my privacy. If I want to carry large amounts of cash or not is nobodies business.

sorta the point i was going for as well...

[Ford Prefect]

Yup, that quarter million might be 100% kosher. But I figure if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you might as well shoot it and take it home for dinner. It sounded like the cop had reasonable grounds for doing just that ... the fellow was speeding, so the cop was legit in stopping him. And it didn't sound like Mr. Quarter Million In Cash In The Trunk didn't do a very good job of playing 20 questions with the cop, so he probably had reasonable grounds to search the car. And let's face it, who travels with a quarter million of legitimate cash in the trunk? If it was legit cash, I'd have at least bothered to get it turned into a bank draft payable to myself. The casino story doesn't wash either. Ever try cashing in even $10K at a casino? You pretty much have to sign over your first born to do it, so a quarter million in unreceipted casino winnings is no plausible.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Yup, that quarter million might be 100% kosher. But I figure if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you might as well shoot it and take it home for dinner. It sounded like the cop had reasonable grounds for doing just that ... the fellow was speeding, so the cop was legit in stopping him. And it didn't sound like Mr. Quarter Million In Cash In The Trunk didn't do a very good job of playing 20 questions with the cop, so he probably had reasonable grounds to search the car. And let's face it, who travels with a quarter million of legitimate cash in the trunk? If it was legit cash, I'd have at least bothered to get it turned into a bank draft payable to myself. The casino story doesn't wash either. Ever try cashing in even $10K at a casino? You pretty much have to sign over your first born to do it, so a quarter million in unreceipted casino winnings is no plausible.

Why do I or anyone have to play twenty questions with a cop. This guy now has to prove he got the money ligitimately. The whole incident sounds like he is guilty until proven innocent and if we're fine with that, than watch our freedoms be slowly taken away.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well you obviously haven't been in some of the modern trailer parks. What seems unreasonable to you would seem normal to some retirees. Don't take the Trailer Park Boys as representing all trailer park inhabitants.
Me, I don't live in a trailer park but I take, you or some cop deciding what's reasonable, as an invasion of my privacy. If I want to carry large amounts of cash or not is nobodies business.

What is reasonable is defined as "an honest belief of the existence of a set of circumstances which assuming them to be true would reasonably lead any ordinary, prudent and cautious person, placed in the position of the accuser, to the conclusion that the person is guilty of the crime imputed."

It is not about the state walking in and seizing assests of yours because they are expensive or you have a lot of money. In this case (from the information in the article) any reasonable person would believe that the accused is lieing and that there is a good chance the money is from proceeds of crime.

I get this vibe from you that if you believe if you are innocent and a police officer comes to ask you questions.......you don't have to say anything all. That alone would draw some suspicion. A reasonable person would exclude themselves as a suspect by cooperating. In this case, if the money was legit, a reasonable person would answer the questions and the answers would make sense. It is not like the officer just pulled buddy over, saw the money ans said "hey, you don't look like someone who should have this money I am taking it." It sounds like he tried to get the story on why the guy had the money because maybe he could negate the indicators and the story would make sense. But the guy could not come up with a reasonable explaination as to why he had it.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Yup, that quarter million might be 100% kosher. But I figure if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you might as well shoot it and take it home for dinner. It sounded like the cop had reasonable grounds for doing just that ... the fellow was speeding, so the cop was legit in stopping him. And it didn't sound like Mr. Quarter Million In Cash In The Trunk didn't do a very good job of playing 20 questions with the cop, so he probably had reasonable grounds to search the car. And let's face it, who travels with a quarter million of legitimate cash in the trunk? If it was legit cash, I'd have at least bothered to get it turned into a bank draft payable to myself. The casino story doesn't wash either. Ever try cashing in even $10K at a casino? You pretty much have to sign over your first born to do it, so a quarter million in unreceipted casino winnings is no plausible.

He probally didnt. A lot of people dont know that (in the states anyways) when they ask if they can search the car you can say no. If they dont have any definite reason to search they cant.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/traffic_stop_scenario

I wonder how this works in Canada though... any lawyers?

Edit: Here are the video clips on what to do
http://www.flexyourrights.org/busted/movie_clips

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by stang

He probally didnt. A lot of people dont know that (in the states anyways) when they ask if they can search the car you can say no. If they dont have any definite reason to search they cant.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/traffic_stop_scenario

I wonder how this works in Canada though... any lawyers?

Edit: Here are the video clips on what to do
http://www.flexyourrights.org/busted/movie_clips

Your right....if they ask to search and you say no they can't without a warrant unless there are extenuating circumstances. If something is in plain view such as drugs, then those can be siezed. If a further search is required and the occupant does not give permission the appropriate thing to do is get a warrant.

[stang]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Your right....if they ask to search and you say no they can't without a warrant unless there are extenuating circumstances. If something is in plain view such as drugs, then those can be siezed. If a further search is required and the occupant does not give permission the appropriate thing to do is get a warrant.

Yup and a judge more then likely will not give a warrant just because "He failed at 20 questions" Police do not have the power or the rights to just go through our stuff.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by stang

Police do not have the power or the rights to just go through our stuff.

some think they do. others will simply make up an excuse to do so.
whatever, you get jerks and incompetence in any profession.... what's disturbing is that in a lot of places, there is no disciplinary action

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/...d=6125&print=1


PS: hi jolinar of malkshor!!

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I don't know guys, to me this paragraph says a lot

The 35-year-old from British Columbia, who had a valid driver's license, struggled to tell the trooper where he was going and how long he had been in Washington, prompting the trooper to search his car, Merrill said.

If I'm a police officer and I see an out of state/province driver's licence and I ask where you're going and how long you've been here, and you can't answer . . . that seems fishy to me.

If the money was legit wouldn't you just say "I'm on vacation and am driving through Washington on my way back home"? If a police officer was in my home and asked where I got my TV, and I said "I got it at Futureshop oh I guess it would be 3 or 4 years ago now" that answer is a lot different from "ughhhhh ummmmm what TV?" Regardless I think the television example is a little extreme of an analogy over having $275k in a suitcase in your car.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

If the money was legit wouldn't you just say "I'm on vacation and am driving through Washington on my way back home"? If a police officer was in my home and asked where I got my TV, and I said "I got it at Futureshop oh I guess it would be 3 or 4 years ago now" that answer is a lot different from "ughhhhh ummmmm what TV?" Regardless I think the television example is a little extreme of an analogy over having $275k in a suitcase in your car.

A little bit more extreme but raises the question where is the 'line'. What is the point that some amount of cash or expensive merchandise is too much that it becomes fishy? and how much detailed, accurate and documented proof do you have to give that it belongs to you and all the funds for it were obtained legally (especially on the spot)?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

PS: hi jolinar of malkshor!!

Um....hello....I guess?