I think that the fact that there's debate on the merits of unlawful/unconstitutional seizures is strong evidence of the seriousness of the problem. You can't get where we are without people who are very misaligned with foundational morality, and the Constitution, if not always the applicable rules and laws. Sure, seizures do have a long history in common law, even biblically and in ancient history. And sure, when you seize the C172 loaded with drugs and guns- you auction it all and buy a new cruisers or whatever. But you'd have to be working very hard at pretending ignorance if you can't find any stories of corrupt officers and officials abusing the concept of civil and criminal seizure all over the country.

First off: Nearly all circulated bills test positive for drug contact, right? It's hard to swipe your debit card for meth at the meth store, I'll bet. Test the bills in your own pocket, see whether you need to surrender your house, lol.

Second: I don't know the 100k story well, but we all know that people definitely do travel with big cash for legitimate reasons. And as we move closer to an inflection point in the country, it's going to happen a lot more. But we know that possessing cash or nice things can not be an argument to prove anything. Read up on "unreasonable search and seizure". Traffic stops, travelling, moving money among banks, etc.

I like the idea of court-appointed counsel as a minimum right for people who are falsely accused and have their property taken by police or others. At least then the burden of proof would shift off of the "innocent until proved guilty"(remember when that was a thing?). Also no seizure without a conviction would help.

The lure of seizures is still too often too great for people unworthy of their authority...to focus on those people who write these rules versus those who carry out the deeds. Government agencies are staffed by people and are thus as tempted and fallible as everyone else.

Official figures are going way down though: According to the DOJ site, Texas total net deposits from Civil(not criminal) in was-
$43,305,752.00 in 2020, $86,881,019.00 in 2018, $97,831,788.00 in 2016. Somehow we've left $54 million bucks on the table between 2016 and 2020, something sure happened there.

You maybe right, let's leave off the .9 and go with 99% which is still kicking that azz.

It’s still necessary to protect citizens from the 1%.

LOL...you're right. I don't fit the demographic to get pulled over. YMMV

Sneaky if you are going to throw that out there than why don't you just make a blanket statement that it is necessary to protect everybody from everything

Lets see this topic starts off with a $100,000 that was sniffed out by a highly trained police K-9 dog, the money was being transported illegally at an international airport.
This money was also concealed in a manner that is typical of criminals modus operandi of transporting illegal funds
It never ceases to amaze me how some can turn the subject into what some police might have done wrong instead of all of what they do that is right for everyone!

If one cop out of a hundred takes a couple of grand from a drug bust that is wrong especially for a person who has sworn and paid to uphold the law!
So far as the police using their discretion about confiscating large amounts of money from people with or without documentation or sound reasoning as to where it came from, thats what they are trained to do and I bet they get it right for the most part. Yep a few legitimate folks that had their money confiscated will be inconvenienced and that sucks big time!!!

Try and think about all of the bad money confiscated that would have funded the proliferation of even more bad deeds that might negatively effect some one you know or love or just some other good person or family?

Don't bash the police for enforcing the laws, hate the laws and change them by voting in who best represents your vision of how society should act.
We all should more concerned about are the politicians, DA's Judges that are letting scum bags out of jails and prison and taking away an officers ability's to do his job

Be damn glad we have a police force left with all of the BS they have to put up! Think about how fricking tough our police have it today knowing that repeat offenders they lock up will be out on the streets in hours, that so many politicians do not have their back which emboldens criminals to do whatever the hell they please even making our police officers targets.
Our police do not get paid nearly enough money for the chit they have to put up and the dangers they face every time they put on the uniform.

So how about lets give the PoPo the benefit of the doubt before we jump to negative unfounded hypothetical conclusions or assertions

On domestic flights there is no limit on the amount of cash a person can carry, nor is there a requirement to notify anyone, as in TSA or the airline. In this case, the dog alerted to the suitcase, why?? most likely drug residue, next the packaging, 2 blankets and bubble wrap. That says something, but still no proof of a criminal activity, but highly probable that she was on a mission of criminal a nature.

Next, the IRS is probably already involved, her tax returns have been looked at. If she has not reported sufficient income, to account for the money, she will probably be audited and land up with a huge tax bill to add to the loss of the money.

I would not want to be the law enforcement officer that siphoned off all or a portion of cartel money. You think they wouldn't find you and your family? Let's see, $250K seized and only $100K makes it in as evidence. Who they gonna call? The mule and then you.

DC I bet your are right about no limits on domestic flights, I should not have used the word illegally.

My whole point was that some folks on here decide to turn an obvious good seizure of money by the police into lets bash the police for doing their jobs enforcing the law.

Unfortunately it is hard to get a grasp on what is applicable law and what is just policies that can circumvent the law with good intentions!

In the article below a DPD spokes person said they have to declare over $10,000 even on domestic flights, the very next sentence of the article it says they do not have to declare any amount of money if flying domestically.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/12/08/dallas-police-love-field-civil-asset-forfeiture/

(A DPD spokesperson also alleged that travelers are not allowed to board a plane with more than $10,000 of cash without declaring it, even on domestic flights.

However, only travelers coming into or leaving the US are specifically required by law to declare large amounts of cash.

According to an article from Virginia CBS affiliate WTKR, laws that require the reporting of cash exchanges over $10,000 are sometimes used to justify such seizures.

“The fact of the matter is that there are laws that deal with reporting cash that’s over $10,000 and there are also laws that deal with reporting it to the IRS,” WTKR legal analyst Todd Stone said. “So the theory is when someone is carrying this much cash you’re trying to evade those laws.”

Some lawyers don’t buy that reasoning.)

Supporting law enforcement officers and being critical of civil asset forfeiture laws are not mutually exclusive. CAF is 180° opposite of how laws are supposed to work in this country, even if 99.9% of the time the police get it right. And there are plenty of stories of police getting it wrong and really jamming up honest folks.

cookie jar

I agree with most of this. My problem with the story in the OP is that she was not arrested and seemingly would have been if she had committed a crime. I don’t think anyone is arguing that, if an officer stops someone and finds drugs and cash that the police can’t seize the drugs and cash as evidence.

The person wasn’t arrested but her cash was seized. Not charged with a crime, but her legal tender was taken because a dog alerted to it. So why not hold her until it can be investigated? If she says it’s not hers, but was in her luggage, that seems fishy.

That’s my issue with this story and civil asset forfeiture in general. It should be in conjunction with an arrest. Sometimes even when someone is arrested it’s hell getting their property back after not being convicted or charges dropped. The whole thing is backwards.

Didn't they trust you?????

Agreed, 100%.

"It is better 100 guilty persons should escape, than that one innocent Person should suffer"

--Benjamin Franklin

I can't believe any American, law enforcement officer or otherwise, would accept civil asset forfeiture as an acceptable policy in the absence of proven guilt. Especially when those assets directly benefit those doing the seizing...it's a policy bound to cause corruption.

I can see the view of someone who has done a thousand traffic stops and seen, heard, smelled freakin' everything, and been responsible for making this call on confiscation. Respect for the opinion of the true experts who do the job while I look on and philosophize. It's just the extreme peril to constitutional rights, in a time when things are getting worse so fast. The meaning and implication of every word counts, and people are sensitive to the implication of authoritarian overreach at any level.

If I ever get anything seized incorrectly, hopefully a truly cruel, vicious, brilliant lawyer will be there. (Everybody hates lawyers- until you desperately need one to save your life.)

I'll bet lawyers have blood-thirsty fantasies about LEOs saying stuff like this under deposition or on the stand:

"...we aren’t seizing money that’s legitimately earned."
"I will get that money every time just to keep it from the bad guy."
"Y’all don’t understand the type people we are speaking of and I wouldn’t expect you to but we know the difference."
" Im not seizing regular folks cash."

If you see good litigators working in court much, you can imagine how credibility can be pulverized for such statements, no matter how they may be intended. Be careful.

Justify it all you want. It’s BS. You’re exactly right Sneaky.

ETA: I had a little over 20,000 on me on my way to buy my Ranger, guess y’all would’ve divided that up too if I’d a got stopped?

I’m also drinking right now, so you MF’ers need to take that in consideration

To be clear, my issue isn't with the cops. As stated above, I'm sure that they are right the vast majority of the time. My issue is with the law. The law needs to be changed to disentangle the criminal and civil justice systems. Until that happens, I don't fault the cops for enforcing the law. If I was on the force, every cruiser would be an Escalade.

Exactly, the LAW itself is retarded and unconstitutional, and incase y’all haven’t noticed, the war of drugs has been going on since the 80’s and it’s worse now than ever, good job Government, every time they declare war on something it turns out to be Effed, war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism, etc.

I never had an issue seizing a hundred grand from someone, when the preponderance of the evidence indicated it was money from illegal activity, which is the burden of proof in an asset forfeiture case. Not one single person ever had a job, and like I posted earlier, only one out of a hundred ever even said it was their money anyway. What this chick told the officers is unknown to us all, so this is all just speculation on everyone's part on what was learned from the initial interview.

I stopped hundreds of folks who were carrying tens of thousands of dollars with them and never even touched it, because they were legitimate people, with legitimate jobs or retired, and it was just common damn sense that they weren't criminals. It seems like there is a common idea on here that officers assume, because someone is carrying a large sum of cash, that the person is automatically believed to be a criminal. I can assure everyone that that is not the case. After dealing with tens of thousands of people, a good percentage of them being criminals, it's beyond easy to figure out who the criminals are.

Seizing a large sum of money BTW is a horrible PITA. We would run it though the counter 2-3 times but then it still has to hand counted 3-4 more times to make sure every penny was accounted for. Putting one amount into a report and then the DA's Office finding out it was 20 bucks short, would initiate an IAD investigation from hell. Most officers actually look at seizing money as a pain and would rather not do it because of that.

How did we get to the point that it is okay to use a civil standard in a criminal matter?

a great portion of currency in circulation would test positive or residue. the people that favor these laws also favor red flag laws. Your guilty until you prove your innocent.

Parking lots full of 100k trucks and cars now a days. When we step back and think about it 100k doesn't go near as far as it use too. Kind of sad really

Shipped it in her checked baggage told me everything I needed to know. What dumb azz does that?

I noticed the same thing, even see a lot of kids in 100k vehicles more these days .