"Guilty" Money
The government has no business taking your money simply because you are carrying cash (even very large sums of cash) entirely sans probable cause: reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime.
And no, merely carrying a lot of cash does not count as "reasonable suspicion."
Yet, over and over, we still see government agencies stealing cash from citizens under color of law.
It's happened again. There's a story at Reason by CJ Ciaramella about a family now suing the DEA and TSA after a man's life savings were seized. An excerpt:
Terrence Rolin kept his life savings in a Tupperware container, but all that money now belongs to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), even though the 79-year-old retired railroad engineer hasn't been charged with a crime.When Rolin's daughter, Rebecca Brown, tried to take her father's savings--$82,373 in cash--on an airplane, a DEA agent seized it simply because large amounts of cash are considered suspicious by the agency.
Brown and Rolin are now the lead plaintiffs in a federal class-action lawsuit filed Wednesday by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm, challenging the DEA and TSA's practice of seizing large amounts of cash from airline passengers without any evidence of any underlying crime.
"Flying with any amount of cash is completely legal, but once again we see government agents treating American citizens like criminals," Institute for Justice senior attorney Dan Alban said in a press release. "You don't forfeit your constitutional rights when you try to board an airplane. It is time for TSA and federal law enforcement to stop seizing cash from travelers simply because the government considers certain amounts of cash 'suspicious.'"
A DEA agent at the airport who called Rolin, whom his daughter says is suffering mental decline, said the man was unable to confirm some details and said they were seizing the cash.
Is anyone noticing how crazy it is that we are being made to make a case that our money isn't dirty -- despite there being no other evidence beyond our mere possession of cash?
Oh, and does anyone recall that the mission of the TSA was supposed to be keeping us safe from terrorists?
I believe that they were not involved in any criminal activities, but there are a few things about her story that don't make complete sense.
First, this all started because he didn't trust institutions like banks. All of a sudden, she's only going to go to only one Federal website to see if it's safe to take a lot of cash on a flight? She's not going to search on "people who had cash taken at the airport?"
Second, the Washington Post story says she planned to open a joint account with the cash after she got to her destination. I doubt there is any bank that would have permitted anyone to open a joint account with this much money and not have the second party present. Any attempt to do this would have resulted in the DEA being contacted to seize the money at the bank. (See? You can't trust the banks!)
Third, she says that there wasn't time to go to the bank before her flight. Okay, this is the one time you should try to change your itinerary and take a later flight. "Hey, Dad. Can I use some of this money to go home on another flight? I'll pay you back!"
Fourth, she claims that because the DEA took all his money, he can't afford to get his car fixed or have dental work done. I'll buy that the car didn't start having problems until after the money was seized. But the tooth decay didn't happen overnight. "Hey, Dad. Maybe it's best that I don't try to take ALL the money with me. Maybe you should keep $10,000 just in case."
I agree that there shouldn't have been any issue with travelling with money, but the way things are now, you cannot blindly trust things are going to go your way when this much cash is involved.
Fayd at January 27, 2020 6:54 AM
Fayd, these are all good points. I think that civil asset forfeiture is both unconstitutional and wrong but that doesn’t excuse journalists from asking tough questions of the supposed victim in order to push the narrative by twisting the facts or glossing over acts that simply don’t make any sense.
Isab at January 27, 2020 8:14 AM
> that doesn’t excuse journalists
Journalists are as small-minded as anyone else. And when they see the petty stupidity of the average person on social media, they'll think they're on a higher plane of existence anyway.
But of course they're not, and they never were. The NYT was always a corrupting enterprise, whatever its considerable virtues.
One thing that we could hope comes out of these weird years is a proper respect for the distortions that appear in the communication you receive from anyone in any context.
And to start with, we can stop pretending that journalists eve have a higher calling to truth, let alone that they try to pursue it day-to-day.
That's not said with cynicism... It's human nature.
(This blog has always been good about the atrocities of civil forfeiture.)
Crid at January 27, 2020 11:11 AM
Tigers gonna tiger. Cops gonna cop.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 27, 2020 12:24 PM
Some people carry lots of cash because they are paranoid about the gov (and who can blame them). Some are going to another state to buy cars and ship them home. I know a guy who that is his business. Other people it is drug money. But in no case is it the gov's business. Cash seizure just makes the gov into another gang.
cc at January 27, 2020 2:12 PM
Some DEA agent is gonna have a new Benz soon.
mpetrie98 at January 27, 2020 2:37 PM
Leave a comment