@shermrock345 if he would have refused. They would have brought the scent dog out. If the dog hit on the money as he should. Boom probable cause open the door we are searching. He should have literally laundered the money before the trip😅.
@@dangeary2134 I remember that news story. It was an armored car for a state legal marijuana operation. I remember they used a civilian vehicle while the police went after an empty armored car. It's ridiculous that state police are in cahoots with federal law enforcement when the activity is not illegal by the state that they work for.
The court needs to reimburse his attorney's fees and award punitive damages. As for the cop, he was probably cleared of any wrongdoing by his department.
Any lawsuit should end with the loser paying the legal fees. The culture of frivolous lawsuits in the US would all but vanish if the people filing them started losing their homes.
@@fix0the0spadeOn the other hand, anyone who thinks they could win would file any lawsuit they could because they think they won’t have to pay legal fees.
All of the lower courts are drooling at the chops about how easy it was to reach out and snatch a bundle of cash. The higher courts have a much better perspective of the winds of change coming for all these corrupt judges. When the people finally say enough is enough, which we are almost certainly in the eighth inning now, things could race ahead very quickly. Not only will all of these practices be ended permanently in all circumstances, but many of these judges could be put out retroactively for their corrupt practices. Under the best circumstances retroactive prosecutions could be held. You can cite a thousand legal precedents why this couldn’t happen, all of which would be overruled by January 6.
Some years ago my attorney was often an assistant prosecutor for the county DA's office. He was working one case involving drugs and he had a drug dog sniff money taken from the defendant. The dog indicated the money had a drug residu. The defense attorney asked several people in the courtroom to subject their money to the dog. All of the money had a positive reaction from the dog, including money offered by the judge. The case was dismissed.
@@HansSchickConsidering having money in the first place is considered suspicious, everything! How much do you make from terrorist activities? I'm going to say it's a substantial sum.
Taking another's property/money without a legitimate law enforcement purpose(probable cause of a crime) is theft and a violation of the 4th amendment regardless of what costume they wear.
Government decided government thugs can do exactly what the constitution forbids government from doing. Shocker. Until We the People take a stand and remind government who the real authorities are it's going to continue.
Technically, Federal Reserve Notes are not your property. You are just a holder in do course of your commercial dealings. Compared to gold, they would lose in court each and every time they seized it under a takings claim.
Definitely think Civil Asset Forfeiture without cause is government overreach. Place Civil Asset Forfeiture to a public vote on the 2024 ballot. The government is going beyond its intended responsibilities when it was created hundreds of years ago. Time for the public to rein in the overreach by making critical issues available for public vote.
@@MrDLRu Cops and the courts don't own it either. They could "forfeit" all of the US currency in circulation everywhere on a baseless hunch and they would still be nothing more than common thieves.
I remember one PD flat out said they had no intention of paying out a judgement. The judge ordered the police chief jailed for contempt until he or the mayor (the only two who could authorize the payment) wrote out and signed the check.
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 It's pretty funny: I've always been taught that you had to perform to the latest ruling, but in some instances, cops just dragged their feet citing an appeal that they filed or intended to file
Back around 300 BCE, the philosopher Plato argued that good people don't need laws to make them do the right thing, and the bad people don't give a crap about the law, so why do we need laws? My counter-argument is that "How many people are only alive because it's against the law to (end) them?" OTOH, if everyone had to worry that the consequences of their butthole behavior could be fatal, they might think twice about behaving like buttholes.
Drug sniffing any money should be illegal. All money travels from legitimate to illegitimate locations several times a week. Even money we get from the banks will be positive for drugs.
There needs to be full refunds/recovery of costs when cases are won. Blame the legislature. They write the laws. Blame the legislature. Forfeiture issues could be resolved.
That's not enough. They wronged person needs to be paid a significant amount extra for what they were put through. Say 100k per month from seizure date until reimbursed
It is not forfeiture that is the problem. It is civil forfeiture. It should be stricken. Criminal forfeiture is what should be used. Meaning that they have to charge you with a crime. If found guilty, then you forfeit the proceeds of the crime. If found not guilty, there is no crime. Therefore, there is no forfeiture. In Canada (year - party in control), BC (2006 BC United Liberal), Quebec (2007 Conservative but corrupt), Ontario (2010 Liberal), Manitoba (2014 NDP, Liberal's sidekick), Saskatchewan (2019 mixed Left and Right changing to the right), and Canada wide (2021 Liberal) have passed civil forfeiture. Even with the problems that were known from the states and especially Quebec (where fraud and corruption has always been rampant), it was still passed. With the Liberals in power, who could expect anything else.
@@michaelgarrison688 They all want to get their hands on the that is literally stolen. What else would you expect from corrupt politicians? They all feed at the same troughs.
They not only take cash. They also take valuables like jewelry. Also, In one state the police carry a special card reader device which they can use to drain a debit card account.
@@dknowles60 I can second this. Once I realized that they love to tow your car to bring up tow fees? I just simply decided having a nice car was no longer worth it. When you don't have anything they can gain access to take away? It really makes them angry you don't have any exposed attack vectors.
He should have gotten his ($300k) money back plus another $250k for all his troubles throughout this process . Steve, this is a bad ending because it costed him money to get his own money back , can he sue for unjust damages?
@@maxicanamerican2023 Civil asset forfeiture requires no crime, no hint of a crime, no charges, no work beyond making an assumption and writing out a receipt for what they stole.
It's due to Asian's being generally Trusting of authority figures. It was the shock of my life when I realized that this was not the case. In California, I had my car searched and was told to provide a Prescription for my Diabetes medication. I pulled up MyHealthyVet and they got Angry that I was able to do so and told me to put my Phone away. This is for my Insulin & Meter! It ended up in Jail time where they kicked me out of jail after I found out how to use the phone system to try to call out for help. All of this happned in San Jose California. The fact that this occurred to me 4x times while there in a 9 month period and while at work no less? Really changed my plans for my life. I'm still injured to this very day from being thrown on the ground for trying to call my supervisor on the phone. They slammed my face to the ground so hard that I have yet to get all my teeth fixed as I am still getting all that approved by the VA. The crazy part is? I was making close to 15k a month as a Low Voltage electrician and a server data farm Architect. Never did drugs. I have a CLEAN record. Zero Felonies. FULL coverage insurance. Valid Licence Paper work for my Car, and my insurance and even proof of my Qualification and Work Badge. I did 8 years in the Navy with a Honorable discharge, and about 4 presidential citations for meritorious service. NEVER did I think that I could not trust LEO's or my government. It just never occurred to me that all these stories you heard from other people were true.... Till it happned to you...
I remember a study published in Psychology Today back in 1970 (or so). Researchers attempted tried to correlate personality traits with occupation. Largely this failed. The exception was cops and criminals. They were essentially two sides of the same coin.
Yes. Research has also shown that the overwhelming majority of the people who want to be and become cops are "high testers" for one of or both of the following personality types; 1) Authoritarian Personality Type 2) Social Dominance Orientation If you google those and look at the characteristics, you'll see how it's a situation in which the people who want to be cops, are literally the worst people to ever give authority.....does anybody see how that could be a huge problem?
I've known quite a number of criminals and ex cons who admitted to wanting to be a cop when they were young. Take what you will from that unscientific anecdote.
Rather than confront politely answer with your own question "Why have you stopped me?" And tell him time is of essence you need to get going & do not consent to any search Or give your phone. Yes, he may get a warrant or a drug dog but don't help him frame you.
I know some current and retired PA State Police Troopers. They have told me PSP is corrupt and not to trust any of them, including the ones I know. When Troopers tell their friends this, you have to take it seriously. And they say keep your friends close and your enemies(police) closer.
It seems to be a real issue. I flew over from Europe to attend a car auction, with $220,000 in cash. Which I reported upon landing. The customs officer, after having done the paperwork, told me: "From this point on you will not tell anyone that you have this money. Not even to police officers."
The guy won but was still punished just because the process became the punishment. That needs to end and qualified immunity needs to end so the innocent don't lose when they win in court.
"We're gonna go ahead and search your vehicle, OK?" That's asking for consent, but does it sound like you have a choice? Or my favorite, when there's an officer on each side of the car and they simultaneously ask to search different ways to confuse you. "Can we search" and "Do you mind if we search". If you answer yes OR no, you've given one the permission that they want to hear. And good luck getting them to stop once they've started and found a "suspicious" bag in the trunk. Not that they can hear you revoking the "permission" while you're cuffed in the back seat for "officer safety" That's why my go-to response is "I do not consent to any serches". It removes ANY ambiguity when cops start using double negatives or have 2 cops talking over each other.
I recommend that when driving with huge amounts of cash, try not to engage in friendly conversation with the highway patrol storm troopers after getting pulled over for numerous infractions. Or, just try going the speed limit. Sometimes that works.
@@user-no1cares And of course NEVER consent to a search. If they are going to do it they are going to do it. Don't give them a possible out by consenting.
@@user-no1cares I have serious doubts that the victim in this case broke a single traffic law. He was pulled over for out-of-state tags, pure and simple.
Cops these days ALWAYS ramp up their suspicions. They are trained to hear hoofbeats and see zebras rather than the horses it usually is. They waste time and rip off honest people every day. Who in the hell just wants anyone to rifle through your car?
I remember years ago on a 20/20 TV show, the reporter interviewed a southern county sheriff who was breaking records on how much money they were taking from motorists, even small amounts like $20, because drug dogs hit on it. They asked the sheriff to take money out of his wallet, and they tested it for cocaine and it was positive! SMH it’s on all the money, so they can always confiscate it.
@@georgedunkelberg5004car rentals not moving truck/van rentals. The only thing asked for a car rental is location of return (actually for truck rentals also but you are limited by milage for 1 way truck..and will need to pay additional mileage). You can change your drop off at any point also.
The courts ruled this way to keep civil asset forfeiture going. Dismissed on a technicality so the man can’t file a lawsuit in the unlawful forfeiture.
My wife and I were purchasing a house and putting 145k down. The hoops we had to jump through before the bank would accept our money were completely insane. It took more than 8 weeks to clear it. I finally told the bank I wasn’t doing anything else except going to another bank and they approved it.
An deposit over 9K has to be reported to the feds, so many banks make multiple smaller deposits to avoid getting the Feds involved. The feds assume any large deposit has to from ill gotten gains, like drugs.
I was stopped in Pennsylvania, arrested without probable cause. I told the officers “I do not consent to any searches or seizures.” They turned around and used that as a basis to obtain a search warrant for my vehicle, and a magistrate signed off on it.
@@josebrown5961Why should anyone allow their vehicle to be searched when they haven't committed a crime? Something could be planted during the search. This has happened to people. The constitution says that the police must have probable cause. So the judge just rubber stamps whatever the police do. There are a lot of corrupt judges and police officers.
The man is not made whole. He lost on lawyer fees, and on losing the farm desired to purchase. And since then, the land prices have gone UP considerably
I have been stopped by cops before. Most of them will ask to search your vehicle & most of them will ask about the search in an obscure way (i.e. do you mind if I search your car?). Most people will say no and the cop will testify in court that they said they didn't mind and so consented to the search. Also most people do not know you can rescind your consent and the cop must stop though most cops will try to brow beat you to allow the search by telling the person again that they already consented. From personal experience if you don't know your rights and don;t stand firm on your rights the majority of cops will violate your rights. And then there is the problem with qualified immunity for cops.
Unless he has already got his cell phone and money from the state police, he's not likely to get it back anytime soon. It will either be appealed or the money won't be available.
Why would the cops be examining the rental agreement any further than to confirm the driver is the person who rented the vehicle? It's none of their business "what your plans are."
I am a former K9 trainer and it is VERY COMMONLY ACCEPTED that we cannot train with cash as almost all cash has detectable cocaine on it. There are TSA dogs trained to smell cash, but I figure theyre also alerting to the cocaine.
I've been stopped plenty of times for "following to close" (a state trooper favorite). It's really because I have out-of-state plates. You can't tell me otherwise.
I was driving a rental car with Florida plates through Amarillo Texas and was stopped twice within ten minutes by two different troopers. Was given a "warning" for "speed" each time.
This is the other reason why rental car companies no longer wanted tesla's on their fleet. The data that was recorded during all the traffic stops led to liabilities and indeed cost the company millions of dollars in man hours getting that footage. These Rental Tesla's caught so many shenanigans it was book worthy.
So how does this gyy get made whole? Getting the money back doesn't get him the farm he was attempting to purchase and the interest on how many years the money was held. If my wages were stolen by a business, I'm owed not only the back wages but interest. When a person /business fails to pay taxes correctly, there are penalties and interest owed, why not here? Requiring that people who have funds improperly seized are justly compensate seems proper and disincentivizes improper seizures.
This is why the government does not like you keeping something like Bitcoin or cyrpto in your own wallet. They have no control over it and can't tell the Exchange to freeze your funds. Meaning? They have lost all control of trying to hurt you financially. Hence why Crypto should always be in YOUR "Wallet" and not in some exchange they can pilfer at will. And BOY did they TRY to take those electronic wallets. Till they found out that you can simply just use a backup, and it becomes a paperweight.
I got pulled over once, way before cell phones, and the cop asked to search my car. I said no, he kind of twitched, threatened me with k9, arrest, etc. Finally he caved and said he'd be keeping his eye on me. I told my grandpa what happened, he went to talk to the chief and I was never pestered again. Small town America, back in the day.
Another good example of why to not talk to the police. Don't try to have a friendly chat with them. They are looking for the slightest of things to get a search.
"Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -Frederick Douglass, former slave, abolitionist and orator
So many bars, restaurants & gas stations have had their night deposits seized by overzealous cops during late-night traffic stops. No evidence of wrongdoing. Just a person driving late at night with a bank bag with $20k in it.
For the Trooper to say he was vague about where he was going which caused his suspicion is laughable. when asked where is he coming from the guy could have simply pointed to the back and when asked where is he going point forward. He didn't have to answer those questions at all.
The cops transfer the money to the Feds and the Feds give some of it back as finders fee. You try and get it back and you're fighting the Feds with endless lawyers knowing no one has that amount of money for legal. Most people find out it costs more money than it's worth.
Amazing how courts always seem to side with the government rather than the citizen. Aside from adjudication of crime, I thought the courts were also there to prevent government interference in our daily lives. This is the general feeling I get reading the U.S. Constitution. Is there a course in law school that teaches otherwise?
At the airport, I’ve had a drug dog come up and sniff my front pocket where my wallet was. The handler asked if I had cash in my pocket. I put two and two together later that the bills I had in my wallet must have had traces of drugs on them.
Guy paid $300k for a lesson not to talk to police and never consent to any searches. He could just watch Steve's video. Im glad he got his phone back. It is really useful 4 years later.
@@Parasclepius anyone buying realestate would either wire the funds or bring a bank check. This is laughable that he got the cash from "an asian guy", doesn't know his name but he was handed 300k, then rented a car to drive to Denver to buy a farm lol. Are you kidding me?
@@coreyfranco7060 The facts suggest he was going to purchase a legal cannabis "farm" in Colorado. We natives call them "grow operations" as they're usually located inside warehouse spaces. Since Banks are federally regulated, the entire industry cannot use them for money transfers. They were/are forced to do a cash only business. There's tons of stories about how criminals prey on the industry when they move cash.
The prosecuting party in every court case they lose should have to pay the defendants lawyer and court fees. They should also have to compensate for and lost wages AND their time spent having to defend a clearly bogus charge. That would make prosecutors think twice before rolling the dice on a bs charge.
@@bartsanders1553 This means it doesn't have to be the exact dollars and bills that were seized. They would have a lawful court order to return $300,000 to this man.
I believe that with recent rulings regarding asset forfeiture, any asset forfeiture that is met with legal resistance is more likely to be dismissed. Had drugs been found instead of money, I suspect that the case would go forward even thought the extended stop time would have been just as applicable. My sceptical side thinks that there is and effort to extend the practice of asset forfeiture by avoiding cases where victims of the practice push back.
Regards obtaining consent, I've heard lots of stories of officers asking two part questions to justify it. For example, "Is this your car can I look inside it?" If the driver answers yes to the first part the officer takes that as consent without waiting for the second answer. If the driver answers no to either part the officer claims probable cause as the driver 'said it wasn't their car', I wonder how often that kind of behaviour takes place.
Never, never, never consent to a search. Watch out too for the trick question "Do you mind if we search your vehicle?" because no means yes. Always say you do not consent to any search and make them work for their/your money.
Can I search your vehicle? You wouldn't mind, would you? - A simple yes or a simple no doesn't work because the asker will attribute it to whichever question suits his or her purpose.
In the UK if you're stopped for suspected driving under the influence all other charges must be stopped. The courts take a dim view and will dismiss all charges if they consider the police are pilling on the charges.
Four years ago!!! How much money did this man have to spend to get his money back? There is still a huge injustice here, unless the state police were ordered to pay his legal fees. What a foolish man to allow them to search the car.
It amazes me that people are still giving police 'Authorization' to search their cars.....NO!! Just hand over your License, Registration, and Insurance and that is it!!
The irony is it wouldn't matter. A person has large amounts of cash in their possession. On the side of the road have the lawyer try to disprove any POSSIBILITY that the money was from or for illegal activity. There was actually a test done. And it turns out that 95% of cash has been in proximity to illicit substances. That means if you have $100 dollars in your wallet there is a good chance that 95 of the 100 had contact with drugs.
Why not change the law to read if the person is NOT arrested, and wants the money back. When the case goes to court, if the person wins and gets his money back, law enforcement SHOULD be made responsible for the winners attorney's fees.
NEVER engage in conversation with a cop. Say absolutely nothing. It is not in any way necessary to do so. If you're pulled over in a traffic stop turn off the engine and place the keys on the dash. Engage any cameras you may have. Keep the doors locked, windows all the way up except for a 1/4" crack to pass any ticket through. The cop can read your license and insurance through the glass. Keep both hands on the wheel and only make slow movements necessary to show license and insurance. It's a good idea to keep those together and easily accessible at all times so there is no rummaging around for them. I've done this many times. It ticks off the cops, but there is nothing they can do about it outside of violating your rights. The smart ones already know this. The stupid need to learn.
its USA, so probably have to sue to get it. should get the original money back, any loss caused by being deprived of the money, legal fees, AND damages to make it right
This is another fine example of why to not converse with police nor give them consent to any searches. Just hand them your paperwork, and if they press you say "I do not answer questions, i do not perform tests, I do not consent to any searches or seizures" Also record 100% of any police interaction. Save the video to the cloud automatically and have a lock on your phone. Lastly get a dashcam system, garmin makes several good ones.
It could be argued that every time a person wakes up they MAY be going to commit a crime. Cops are not suppose to act on maybes but on objective facts that a crime is afoot. They lacked any of that here.
@@ygrittesnow1701 to be fair, I can understand their suspicions. I live in north Texas just south of the Red River, so we get a lot of Oklahoma news stories on TV. It seems like every other week they are busting some Chinese national for something to do with Marijuana cultivation. Either "straw ownership" or outright unlicensed cultivation. However, if they made the stop and subsequent search based solely on the facts that the driver was oriental and in a rented vehicle, then they had other problems from the get-go! As Steve said, "it's still a win."
Assuming he was going to buy a farm, couldn't he have the money wired directly to the closing attorney's escrow account? Avoids all risk of transporting that amount of cash.
@@davidrush4908 some banks are still shy about handling money associated with State legal matijuana operations. The feds still classify as an illegal substance and federal banking rules haven't been fully tested in the courts. They don't want to risk it....
@@davidrush4908 There are some that have an innate distrust of banks. Would it have been safer probably. But what he chose to do wasn't illegal either.
I used to work in a very large "national bank". We had a very lengthy conference call instructing tellers to never lick their fingers during work - use the pink stuff or a wet sponge to moisten fingers. This is due to cash currency having trace elements of narcotics. $1 bills are the most notorious.
NEVER consent to a search...EVER.
Amen! because if they could legally search your vehicle they would not for your permission.
@@shermrock345
Even if they have a warrant, state plainly you do not consent to anything not explicitly stated in the warrant.
@shermrock345 if he would have refused. They would have brought the scent dog out. If the dog hit on the money as he should. Boom probable cause open the door we are searching. He should have literally laundered the money before the trip😅.
They would have lost even faster since they had no reason to use a drug dog.
@@dannyhill692 if the dog was on duty someplace or were the dog and handler on a different shift or far away. So always say no. No exceptions!
If you took a drug dog into a bank it's all guilty of being used in unlawful activity.
I will not be surprised when police walk into banks and seize all of the cash.
I wouldn’t be surprised either. They have already seized armored cars!
@@dangeary2134 I remember that news story. It was an armored car for a state legal marijuana operation. I remember they used a civilian vehicle while the police went after an empty armored car. It's ridiculous that state police are in cahoots with federal law enforcement when the activity is not illegal by the state that they work for.
Including the city's accounts.
There's not that much money in banks. A few hundred thousand, maybe, in bigger banks.
The court needs to reimburse his attorney's fees and award punitive damages. As for the cop, he was probably cleared of any wrongdoing by his department.
But only after a lengthy internal investigation.
Cleared by the dept?!? Hell, he was probably given a promotion for almost getting money. Have to reward trying.
“Cleared of any wrongdoing HUH he was probably named officer of the month .
These Troopers are criminal road pirates..
The “Justice” system to me is one big money making system
IMO, anytime the local, state, or federal gov loses a case like this, they should be required to pay all of the attorney fees and court costs.
Any lawsuit should end with the loser paying the legal fees. The culture of frivolous lawsuits in the US would all but vanish if the people filing them started losing their homes.
And interest. The potential income lost since 2020 is substantial
Out of their very own pockets…
If he'd put that money in an index fund it'd be over 400k by now.
@@fix0the0spadeOn the other hand, anyone who thinks they could win would file any lawsuit they could because they think they won’t have to pay legal fees.
4 years for 'justice'? Just a sad story. Tyrants need to be held accountable.
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty."
Right to a speedy trial my azz!
These aren't tyrants. They are state sanctioned robbers.
Lol, there was zero justice here.
Thats why they call it “civil “ asset forfeiture. No guarantee of a speedy trial for civil issues.
Why are police and judges allowed to make decisions based on their feelings as opposed to the law?
@onceagain6184 US CONSTITUTION OF feelings? Where is it stated that LAWS ARE SUPERCEDED BY BUTT HURTS?
@@georgedunkelberg5004 The enforcement
All of the lower courts are drooling at the chops about how easy it was to reach out and snatch a bundle of cash. The higher courts have a much better perspective of the winds of change coming for all these corrupt judges. When the people finally say enough is enough, which we are almost certainly in the eighth inning now, things could race ahead very quickly. Not only will all of these practices be ended permanently in all circumstances, but many of these judges could be put out retroactively for their corrupt practices. Under the best circumstances retroactive prosecutions could be held. You can cite a thousand legal precedents why this couldn’t happen, all of which would be overruled by January 6.
Because you as a citizen won't do anything about it because you claim it's your country until you actually have to do something.
@@kirkdogg007 WRONG!
Some years ago my attorney was often an assistant prosecutor for the county DA's office. He was working one case involving drugs and he had a drug dog sniff money taken from the defendant. The dog indicated the money had a drug residu.
The defense attorney asked several people in the courtroom to subject their money to the dog. All of the money had a positive reaction from the dog, including money offered by the judge.
The case was dismissed.
Civil Asset forfeiture must be abolished.
Qualified Immunity as well!
@@HansSchick what are you saying? If we think it's wrong we must be criminals?
The militarized stupidity in law enforcement must be abolished.
@@HansSchickConsidering having money in the first place is considered suspicious, everything!
How much do you make from terrorist activities? I'm going to say it's a substantial sum.
Trump is 💯 for civil asset forfeiture.
Taking another's property/money without a legitimate law enforcement purpose(probable cause of a crime) is theft and a violation of the 4th amendment regardless of what costume they wear.
Government decided government thugs can do exactly what the constitution forbids government from doing. Shocker. Until We the People take a stand and remind government who the real authorities are it's going to continue.
Technically, Federal Reserve Notes are not your property. You are just a holder in do course of your commercial dealings. Compared to gold, they would lose in court each and every time they seized it under a takings claim.
Definitely think Civil Asset Forfeiture without cause is government overreach. Place Civil Asset Forfeiture to a public vote on the 2024 ballot. The government is going beyond its intended responsibilities when it was created hundreds of years ago. Time for the public to rein in the overreach by making critical issues available for public vote.
@@MrDLRu you failed in not knowing the difference between do and due, as well as propagating the gold is magic myth.
@@MrDLRu Cops and the courts don't own it either. They could "forfeit" all of the US currency in circulation everywhere on a baseless hunch and they would still be nothing more than common thieves.
The more they get away with, the more of your freedoms you will lose.
Well said Yoda
@@frankd2301 Thanks, I have been feeling short, green and wise lately... :)
Remember, you are losing freedoms courtesy of politicians elected by the citizens.
Law enforcement in America is corrupt as hell
now you know why so many people hate cops.
To fair, the corruption continues along every rung of the ladder.
@@CeanStraussExcept in Fulton County. The DA there is beyond reproach
@@TheWatcherxx99: 😁😁😁😁
Yeah, right.
😁😁😁😁
Civil asset forfeiture just makes corrupt seizures of money legal.
Not to be a jerk, but he did not get a penny back yet. The police may simply ignore the court. It has happened more than once.
Thinking same thing, they may also appeal and drag things out forever
If they did that, he should also sue for the loss of the revenue because of inflation and interest rates, as well as attorney fees.
I remember one PD flat out said they had no intention of paying out a judgement. The judge ordered the police chief jailed for contempt until he or the mayor (the only two who could authorize the payment) wrote out and signed the check.
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 It's pretty funny: I've always been taught that you had to perform to the latest ruling, but in some instances, cops just dragged their feet citing an appeal that they filed or intended to file
You're not the jerk in this story
As they say, "There ought to be a law!" Oh wait, there ARE laws. Officers and courts OUGHT to obey the law.
Back around 300 BCE, the philosopher Plato argued that good people don't need laws to make them do the right thing, and the bad people don't give a crap about the law, so why do we need laws?
My counter-argument is that "How many people are only alive because it's against the law to (end) them?" OTOH, if everyone had to worry that the consequences of their butthole behavior could be fatal, they might think twice about behaving like buttholes.
Drug sniffing any money should be illegal. All money travels from legitimate to illegitimate locations several times a week. Even money we get from the banks will be positive for drugs.
There needs to be full refunds/recovery of costs when cases are won.
Blame the legislature. They write the laws. Blame the legislature. Forfeiture issues could be resolved.
Blame the voters who put these idiots in the legislature. I would suggest that any politician who supports CAF should be removed from office.
I believe that it was the corrupt Supreme Court that allowed citizens to be shook down by the police.
That's not enough. They wronged person needs to be paid a significant amount extra for what they were put through. Say 100k per month from seizure date until reimbursed
It is not forfeiture that is the problem. It is civil forfeiture. It should be stricken. Criminal forfeiture is what should be used. Meaning that they have to charge you with a crime. If found guilty, then you forfeit the proceeds of the crime. If found not guilty, there is no crime. Therefore, there is no forfeiture. In Canada (year - party in control), BC (2006 BC United Liberal), Quebec (2007 Conservative but corrupt), Ontario (2010 Liberal), Manitoba (2014 NDP, Liberal's sidekick), Saskatchewan (2019 mixed Left and Right changing to the right), and Canada wide (2021 Liberal) have passed civil forfeiture. Even with the problems that were known from the states and especially Quebec (where fraud and corruption has always been rampant), it was still passed. With the Liberals in power, who could expect anything else.
@@michaelgarrison688 They all want to get their hands on the that is literally stolen. What else would you expect from corrupt politicians? They all feed at the same troughs.
Civil Asset Forfeiture implies that there is no legal method OR reason for any citizen to possess more than $100 in cash.
What $80 dollars? We didn't take your $20. If you want your $10 back sue us.
or have nice Truck or Car that is why i drive a 500 dollar Piece of crap that runs good
They not only take cash. They also take valuables like jewelry. Also, In one state the police carry a special card reader device which they can use to drain a debit card account.
CAF doesn't specify a limit. ANY amount of money (or asset) could be seen as suspicious.
@@dknowles60 I can second this.
Once I realized that they love to tow your car to bring up tow fees?
I just simply decided having a nice car was no longer worth it.
When you don't have anything they can gain access to take away?
It really makes them angry you don't have any exposed attack vectors.
He should have gotten his ($300k) money back plus another $250k for all his troubles throughout this process . Steve, this is a bad ending because it costed him money to get his own money back , can he sue for unjust damages?
It wasn’t even his money, listen again. He was transporting 300k in cash for someone he didn’t know… seems weird
When is a cell phone unusual
@@somethingsomething404 weirdness is not a crime so the money was returned
@@maxicanamerican2023 Civil asset forfeiture requires no crime, no hint of a crime, no charges, no work beyond making an assumption and writing out a receipt for what they stole.
His mistake besides speeding was he talked to the cops.
If he was speeding...changing lanes without a signal? Really?
@@Garth2011so says the professional lier.
@@jimfinch4706 Police use that more often than drivers. Anything they can do to keep themselves occupied.
Yes, he should not have engaged in conversation with them...where ya going, where ya coming from...just ask for your traffic citations and be gone.
It's due to Asian's being generally Trusting of authority figures. It was the shock of my life when I realized that this was not the case. In California, I had my car searched and was told to provide a Prescription for my Diabetes medication.
I pulled up MyHealthyVet and they got Angry that I was able to do so and told me to put my Phone away.
This is for my Insulin & Meter!
It ended up in Jail time where they kicked me out of jail after I found out how to use the phone system to try to call out for help.
All of this happned in San Jose California.
The fact that this occurred to me 4x times while there in a 9 month period and while at work no less?
Really changed my plans for my life.
I'm still injured to this very day from being thrown on the ground for trying to call my supervisor on the phone.
They slammed my face to the ground so hard that I have yet to get all my teeth fixed as I am still getting all that approved by the VA.
The crazy part is? I was making close to 15k a month as a Low Voltage electrician and a server data farm Architect.
Never did drugs.
I have a CLEAN record.
Zero Felonies.
FULL coverage insurance.
Valid Licence
Paper work for my Car, and my insurance and even proof of my Qualification and Work Badge.
I did 8 years in the Navy with a Honorable discharge, and about 4 presidential citations for meritorious service.
NEVER did I think that I could not trust LEO's or my government.
It just never occurred to me that all these stories you heard from other people were true....
Till it happned to you...
Let's not celebrate until we're sure the state police aren't going to ignore the court order.
@@WhiteG60
Take the money out of the state treasury funds
I remember a study published in Psychology Today back in 1970 (or so). Researchers attempted tried to correlate personality traits with occupation. Largely this failed. The exception was cops and criminals. They were essentially two sides of the same coin.
Yes. Research has also shown that the overwhelming majority of the people who want to be and become cops are "high testers" for one of or both of the following personality types;
1) Authoritarian Personality Type
2) Social Dominance Orientation
If you google those and look at the characteristics, you'll see how it's a situation in which the people who want to be cops, are literally the worst people to ever give authority.....does anybody see how that could be a huge problem?
I've known quite a number of criminals and ex cons who admitted to wanting to be a cop when they were young. Take what you will from that unscientific anecdote.
I'm surprised politician wasn't in there.
1 million estimated psychopaths in the US, fighting for the estimated 750,000 police jobs.
yes they are often the same people too.
And this is exactly why when a cop says where are you headed or where are you coming from, your answer should always be I don’t answer questions!!!!
I always say that's irrelevant to this traffic stop
@@frankstantonjr1153'THASS IS SUSPICIOUS! DOA.
Rather than confront politely answer with your own question "Why have you stopped me?" And tell him time is of essence you need to get going & do not consent to any search Or give your phone. Yes, he may get a warrant or a drug dog but don't help him frame you.
Never tell a cop you're in a hurry......EVER.!@@gladtobefreeagain7375
I know some current and retired PA State Police Troopers. They have told me PSP is corrupt and not to trust any of them, including the ones I know. When Troopers tell their friends this, you have to take it seriously.
And they say keep your friends close and your enemies(police) closer.
It seems to be a real issue. I flew over from Europe to attend a car auction, with $220,000 in cash. Which I reported upon landing. The customs officer, after having done the paperwork, told me: "From this point on you will not tell anyone that you have this money. Not even to police officers."
ALL cops are corrupt.
There should be some sort of compensation for this kind of nonsense, and cops held accountable for wasting someone’s time.
The guy won but was still punished just because the process became the punishment. That needs to end and qualified immunity needs to end so the innocent don't lose when they win in court.
The prevalence of drugs on currency shows yet again the failure of the incompetent and often corrupt drug warriors.
Cops are. Not very bright to them it is just lock up anyone they think look funny 😂
"We're gonna go ahead and search your vehicle, OK?"
That's asking for consent, but does it sound like you have a choice?
Or my favorite, when there's an officer on each side of the car and they simultaneously ask to search different ways to confuse you. "Can we search" and "Do you mind if we search". If you answer yes OR no, you've given one the permission that they want to hear. And good luck getting them to stop once they've started and found a "suspicious" bag in the trunk. Not that they can hear you revoking the "permission" while you're cuffed in the back seat for "officer safety"
That's why my go-to response is "I do not consent to any serches". It removes ANY ambiguity when cops start using double negatives or have 2 cops talking over each other.
Suspicious is a misdemeanor or a felony?
I recommend that when driving with huge amounts of cash, try not to engage in friendly conversation with the highway patrol storm troopers after getting pulled over for numerous infractions. Or, just try going the speed limit. Sometimes that works.
@@user-no1cares And of course NEVER consent to a search. If they are going to do it they are going to do it. Don't give them a possible out by consenting.
Neither
@@user-no1cares I have serious doubts that the victim in this case broke a single traffic law. He was pulled over for out-of-state tags, pure and simple.
Cops these days ALWAYS ramp up their suspicions. They are trained to hear hoofbeats and see zebras rather than the horses it usually is.
They waste time and rip off honest people every day.
Who in the hell just wants anyone to rifle through your car?
NEVER consent!
They then have the option to wait for a dog to sniff around the vehicle. If the dog indicates, they'd then have the authorization to search.
@jazzerbyte the dog is paid to indicate. Why else would the cops keep it around?
@@jazzerbyte "authorized" by an animal trained to indicate. How convenient. Love that our constitutional rights can be squashed by a dog
@@jazzerbytenot if it extends the stop, they can't.
@@Parasclepius: Oh, they'll still extend the stop. However, you have a fighting chance for suppression of any "evidence" found, in court!!!!
🙂
I remember years ago on a 20/20 TV show, the reporter interviewed a southern county sheriff who was breaking records on how much money they were taking from motorists, even small amounts like $20, because drug dogs hit on it. They asked the sheriff to take money out of his wallet, and they tested it for cocaine and it was positive! SMH it’s on all the money, so they can always confiscate it.
So why in fact, doesn’t the court not make the police and the prosecutor pay for the lawyer if they lose the case?
Be serious, you can't expect police and prosecutors to follow the law!
most lawsuits do not just award costs to the plaintiff.
Because you haven't contacted your legislator and made it clear that's what you want to happen.
@@quincybirwood2629 you got that right Quincy……
@@Chef-vg4pu That was a collective "you" btw. We all need to contact our legislators.
Steve I have never been asked about my travel plan when I rent a vehicle. This trooper is tripping.
"Prolly!" Academic/LEO-PO regurgitations. wrong! As exit migrations from Michigan increase, the costs for round trip vs one way will differ!
@@georgedunkelberg5004car rentals not moving truck/van rentals. The only thing asked for a car rental is location of return (actually for truck rentals also but you are limited by milage for 1 way truck..and will need to pay additional mileage).
You can change your drop off at any point also.
Prolly...😅😂🤣
The courts ruled this way to keep civil asset forfeiture going. Dismissed on a technicality so the man can’t file a lawsuit in the unlawful forfeiture.
He can still sue, as the court found the seizure unlawful, but the record is still there.
@@SeanBZA Yes but not for civil asset forfeiture. No court can officially rule on it.
My wife and I were purchasing a house and putting 145k down. The hoops we had to jump through before the bank would accept our money were completely insane. It took more than 8 weeks to clear it. I finally told the bank I wasn’t doing anything else except going to another bank and they approved it.
An deposit over 9K has to be reported to the feds, so many banks make multiple smaller deposits to avoid getting the Feds involved. The feds assume any large deposit has to from ill gotten gains, like drugs.
I was stopped in Pennsylvania, arrested without probable cause. I told the officers “I do not consent to any searches or seizures.” They turned around and used that as a basis to obtain a search warrant for my vehicle, and a magistrate signed off on it.
Sounds just like PA. I know the problem since I live in MD about 35 miles away from PA.
PA is so corrupt
Because no normal person would not agree to letting a cop search his vehicle…
@@josebrown5961Why should anyone allow their vehicle to be searched when they haven't committed a crime? Something could be planted during the search. This has happened to people. The constitution says that the police must have probable cause. So the judge just rubber stamps whatever the police do. There are a lot of corrupt judges and police officers.
@@josebrown5961 I hope that was sarcasm.
The man is not made whole. He lost on lawyer fees, and on losing the farm desired to purchase. And since then, the land prices have gone UP considerably
Civil Asset Forfeiture should be illegal.
The modern version of highway robbery.
Never, ever consent to ANYTHING a cop wants to do.
I have been stopped by cops before. Most of them will ask to search your vehicle & most of them will ask about the search in an obscure way (i.e. do you mind if I search your car?). Most people will say no and the cop will testify in court that they said they didn't mind and so consented to the search. Also most people do not know you can rescind your consent and the cop must stop though most cops will try to brow beat you to allow the search by telling the person again that they already consented. From personal experience if you don't know your rights and don;t stand firm on your rights the majority of cops will violate your rights. And then there is the problem with qualified immunity for cops.
Unless he has already got his cell phone and money from the state police, he's not likely to get it back anytime soon. It will either be appealed or the money won't be available.
his cell phone battery is ''dis-charged'', not ''re-turned''.
Why would the cops be examining the rental agreement any further than to confirm the driver is the person who rented the vehicle? It's none of their business "what your plans are."
I am driving a rental car right now, and ALL my agreement says is that I rented it.
They don't even have to confirm anything from the rental agreement unless the car was reported stolen.
I am a former K9 trainer and it is VERY COMMONLY ACCEPTED that we cannot train with cash as almost all cash has detectable cocaine on it. There are TSA dogs trained to smell cash, but I figure theyre also alerting to the cocaine.
New bills have to be used..the ink is easier to detect than coke ..even a person can detect it on new(er) bills.
And cops wonder why the public has no faith
I sold a house to a Vietnamese couple that paid cash. They said its normal in the Asian community to not trust banks.
I've been stopped plenty of times for "following to close" (a state trooper favorite). It's really because I have out-of-state plates. You can't tell me otherwise.
I was driving a rental car with Florida plates through Amarillo Texas and was stopped twice within ten minutes by two different troopers. Was given a "warning" for "speed" each time.
This is the other reason why rental car companies no longer wanted tesla's on their fleet.
The data that was recorded during all the traffic stops led to liabilities and indeed cost the company millions of dollars in man hours getting that footage.
These Rental Tesla's caught so many shenanigans it was book worthy.
@Recovering_Californian i tell you otherwise
If you have to hire a lawyer, you have already lost financially.
Steve put his glasses on in less than 10 seconds with his left hand. You know he's very interesting in this case.
Maybe we should see about getting him into a game of poker?
So how does this gyy get made whole? Getting the money back doesn't get him the farm he was attempting to purchase and the interest on how many years the money was held. If my wages were stolen by a business, I'm owed not only the back wages but interest. When a person /business fails to pay taxes correctly, there are penalties and interest owed, why not here? Requiring that people who have funds improperly seized are justly compensate seems proper and disincentivizes improper seizures.
This is why the government does not like you keeping something like Bitcoin or cyrpto in your own wallet.
They have no control over it and can't tell the Exchange to freeze your funds.
Meaning? They have lost all control of trying to hurt you financially.
Hence why Crypto should always be in YOUR "Wallet" and not in some exchange they can pilfer at will.
And BOY did they TRY to take those electronic wallets. Till they found out that you can simply just use a backup, and it becomes a paperweight.
That farm is probably a million dollars now. That’s what they owe him.
One question: Did any of the judges involved in this case go to law school? Or did they get their law degree from the back of a comic book.
Good comment.
I got pulled over once, way before cell phones, and the cop asked to search my car. I said no, he kind of twitched, threatened me with k9, arrest, etc. Finally he caved and said he'd be keeping his eye on me. I told my grandpa what happened, he went to talk to the chief and I was never pestered again. Small town America, back in the day.
Another good example of why to not talk to the police. Don't try to have a friendly chat with them. They are looking for the slightest of things to get a search.
"Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -Frederick Douglass, former slave, abolitionist and orator
Ayn Rand called this the "sanction of the victim".
So many bars, restaurants & gas stations have had their night deposits seized by overzealous cops during late-night traffic stops. No evidence of wrongdoing. Just a person driving late at night with a bank bag with $20k in it.
For the Trooper to say he was vague about where he was going which caused his suspicion is laughable. when asked where is he coming from the guy could have simply pointed to the back and when asked where is he going point forward. He didn't have to answer those questions at all.
Law enforcement is allowed to use known faulty and unreliable tactics to persue an investigation.
The cops transfer the money to the Feds and the Feds give some of it back as finders fee. You try and get it back and you're fighting the Feds with endless lawyers knowing no one has that amount of money for legal. Most people find out it costs more money than it's worth.
Freedom is not free !!!!!! 😊 not the old two step.
It's Freedumb. The losers are the winners by popular demand and gifted at birth.
I do believe the courts recently rendered this practice illegal.
How did we get to where cops are stealing your money and you have to go to court to get it back Steve. COME ON IT HAS TO BE BAD.
Amazing how courts always seem to side with the government rather than the citizen. Aside from adjudication of crime, I thought the courts were also there to prevent government interference in our daily lives. This is the general feeling I get reading the U.S. Constitution. Is there a course in law school that teaches otherwise?
You think the courts give a damn about the constitution? It's violated daily left right and center.
He should also get back his attorney's fees, and three x in punitive damages.
"We gave the money to the Feds. Sorry, not sorry."
Never consent to a search.
At the airport, I’ve had a drug dog come up and sniff my front pocket where my wallet was. The handler asked if I had cash in my pocket. I put two and two together later that the bills I had in my wallet must have had traces of drugs on them.
Steve, it's horror stories like this that helped me decide to never enter the US again.
@JohnR406 and what country are you in?
So a trooper is an expert mind reader?
Guy paid $300k for a lesson not to talk to police and never consent to any searches. He could just watch Steve's video. Im glad he got his phone back. It is really useful 4 years later.
He obviously wasn't buying a farm
@@coreyfranco7060really? What was he obviously doing with it, then?
@@Parasclepius anyone buying realestate would either wire the funds or bring a bank check. This is laughable that he got the cash from "an asian guy", doesn't know his name but he was handed 300k, then rented a car to drive to Denver to buy a farm lol. Are you kidding me?
@@coreyfranco7060 The facts suggest he was going to purchase a legal cannabis "farm" in Colorado. We natives call them "grow operations" as they're usually located inside warehouse spaces. Since Banks are federally regulated, the entire industry cannot use them for money transfers. They were/are forced to do a cash only business. There's tons of stories about how criminals prey on the industry when they move cash.
@@coreyfranco7060 crazier things have happened. 🤷🏽♂️ Either way, it's not the governments money and the road pirates need to stay out of it.
The prosecuting party in every court case they lose should have to pay the defendants lawyer and court fees. They should also have to compensate for and lost wages AND their time spent having to defend a clearly bogus charge. That would make prosecutors think twice before rolling the dice on a bs charge.
They'll just hand it to the Feds and that will be the end of it.
Cash is fungible so they'll still have to pay in back.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket But they don't have it once they give it to the feds. They'll have to sue the feds. Sorry.
@bart Cash is fungible. That means they don't have to give back the exact same notes. They only have to pay the right amount.
@@bartsanders1553 This means it doesn't have to be the exact dollars and bills that were seized. They would have a lawful court order to return $300,000 to this man.
@@ygrittesnow1701 But the feds have it. So you have to sue them.
Local courts are aware of their DA's protected drug rackets and will always protect said DA's drug turf.
What if I was weariing a $200k rolex? They going to steal that too?
Yes
I hear Kansas is appealing the ruling against them for employing the Kansas two step
I believe that with recent rulings regarding asset forfeiture, any asset forfeiture that is met with legal resistance is more likely to be dismissed.
Had drugs been found instead of money, I suspect that the case would go forward even thought the extended stop time would have been just as applicable.
My sceptical side thinks that there is and effort to extend the practice of asset forfeiture by avoiding cases where victims of the practice push back.
Regards obtaining consent, I've heard lots of stories of officers asking two part questions to justify it. For example, "Is this your car can I look inside it?" If the driver answers yes to the first part the officer takes that as consent without waiting for the second answer. If the driver answers no to either part the officer claims probable cause as the driver 'said it wasn't their car', I wonder how often that kind of behaviour takes place.
You don't have to answer any questions, and if you do ya don't have to answer yes or no. Ex: "This is my car. No, you can't look around inside it."
Never, never, never consent to a search. Watch out too for the trick question "Do you mind if we search your vehicle?" because no means yes. Always say you do not consent to any search and make them work for their/your money.
Can I search your vehicle? You wouldn't mind, would you? - A simple yes or a simple no doesn't work because the asker will attribute it to whichever question suits his or her purpose.
In the UK if you're stopped for suspected driving under the influence all other charges must be stopped.
The courts take a dim view and will dismiss all charges if they consider the police are pilling on the charges.
US courts are punitive.
Four years ago!!! How much money did this man have to spend to get his money back? There is still a huge injustice here, unless the state police were ordered to pay his legal fees. What a foolish man to allow them to search the car.
It amazes me that people are still giving police 'Authorization' to search their cars.....NO!! Just hand over your License, Registration, and Insurance and that is it!!
I'm starting a new business where you can rent a lawyer to ride along with you so these things don't happen or to use the carpool lane.
sounds expensive
The irony is it wouldn't matter. A person has large amounts of cash in their possession. On the side of the road have the lawyer try to disprove any POSSIBILITY that the money was from or for illegal activity. There was actually a test done. And it turns out that 95% of cash has been in proximity to illicit substances. That means if you have $100 dollars in your wallet there is a good chance that 95 of the 100 had contact with drugs.
Why not change the law to read if the person is NOT arrested, and wants the money back. When the case goes to court, if the person
wins and gets his money back, law enforcement SHOULD be made responsible for the winners attorney's fees.
And, he was not able to buy the farm, which if he did, would be worth a lot more than what he paid for it 4 years ago.
What do you want to bet the state will defy the ruling and not give it back?
NEVER engage in conversation with a cop. Say absolutely nothing. It is not in any way necessary to do so. If you're pulled over in a traffic stop turn off the engine and place the keys on the dash. Engage any cameras you may have. Keep the doors locked, windows all the way up except for a 1/4" crack to pass any ticket through. The cop can read your license and insurance through the glass. Keep both hands on the wheel and only make slow movements necessary to show license and insurance. It's a good idea to keep those together and easily accessible at all times so there is no rummaging around for them.
I've done this many times. It ticks off the cops, but there is nothing they can do about it outside of violating your rights. The smart ones already know this. The stupid need to learn.
I'm of the opinion that most law enforcement have changed their use of the word "suspicious" to "opportunity".
Quasimodo would have made a great cop. He always had a hunch.
Never under any circumstanced allow a willing search of your vehicle.
The answer is always, "I'll let you if you have a warrant."
I hope he also got refunded his legal fees.
Fat chance of that!
its USA, so probably have to sue to get it. should get the original money back, any loss caused by being deprived of the money, legal fees, AND damages to make it right
He won't for this so far but he does have a 4th amendment lawsuit available
Even if he does actually get it back. I bet he doesn't gave enough to buy the farm now.
All money has drug residue on it. That was proven on a news show.
My guess is since they have been ordered to give it back they will now charge him in an attempt to keep both.
This is another fine example of why to not converse with police nor give them consent to any searches. Just hand them your paperwork, and if they press you say "I do not answer questions, i do not perform tests, I do not consent to any searches or seizures" Also record 100% of any police interaction. Save the video to the cloud automatically and have a lock on your phone. Lastly get a dashcam system, garmin makes several good ones.
Just keep a lock box mounted in your trunk. Wonder if this adds extra paperwork to get opened if you "lose" the key if asked.
What is wrong with our country?
You keep voting for politicians who don't or won't do anything about this!
THIS is why we DO NOT CONSENT TO SEARCHES and why we DO NOT ANSWER FISHING QUESTIONS.
Maybe he was going to Colorado to buy a Marijuana farm? Which would be legal in Colorado....
It could be argued that every time a person wakes up they MAY be going to commit a crime. Cops are not suppose to act on maybes but on objective facts that a crime is afoot. They lacked any of that here.
@@ygrittesnow1701 to be fair, I can understand their suspicions. I live in north Texas just south of the Red River, so we get a lot of Oklahoma news stories on TV. It seems like every other week they are busting some Chinese national for something to do with Marijuana cultivation. Either "straw ownership" or outright unlicensed cultivation.
However, if they made the stop and subsequent search based solely on the facts that the driver was oriental and in a rented vehicle, then they had other problems from the get-go! As Steve said, "it's still a win."
Assuming he was going to buy a farm, couldn't he have the money wired directly to the closing attorney's escrow account? Avoids all risk of transporting that amount of cash.
@@davidrush4908 some banks are still shy about handling money associated with State legal matijuana operations. The feds still classify as an illegal substance and federal banking rules haven't been fully tested in the courts. They don't want to risk it....
@@davidrush4908 There are some that have an innate distrust of banks. Would it have been safer probably. But what he chose to do wasn't illegal either.
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE CONSENT TO SEARCH YOUR VEHICLE!
NEVER ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
Ben caught in the handle of mic #4, Steve's LHS
Good eye! I usually check there, not today.
G’nite Bob.
@@user-no1cares Mornin' Bill
I used to work in a very large "national bank". We had a very lengthy conference call instructing tellers to never lick their fingers during work - use the pink stuff or a wet sponge to moisten fingers. This is due to cash currency having trace elements of narcotics. $1 bills are the most notorious.
Our legal system is not set up to help us . 4 years to get the right call. That's ridiculous.