DescentBB

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/american-s ... -1.2760736

I'll remember this when I go to the states again.

Yeah. Sucks. Cash transactions are not something the government can see/control, and they really don't like that. That's why we're moving toward a cashless society (the beginning of the end). There is some legitimacy to the concerns. We're basically being being driven to a bad place by bad people... Seems to me that shouldn't be able to pass for a "solution".

what really burns me up is these arsehole cops are going from "to protect and serve" to "protect and serve their pocketbooks".

I really doubt it's like that, honestly. I think there are plenty of "arseholes" and there are arsehole cops. It takes a special kind of personal experience/perspective to be able to handle a job like that, and not everyone is equipped for it. But I really think this is more of a politically-favored vendetta against people making private transactions. Most of these large-amount of cash private transactions may well be shady. Some surely aren't (going to buy a car/gun(s) with savings, ...). I suppose it's possible/probable that the opportunity is bringing the arsehole cops out of the woodwork. The real problem here is that it is apparently so costly (time and money) to contest that it will certainly harm innocents. In our justice system a person is innocent until proven guilty, and this is diametrically opposed to that principle.

when you see stuff like this thorne...

The young college grad with no criminal record on his way to a job interview out West who was relieved of $2,500 lent to him by his dad for the trip.

and this...

The (minority) businessman from Georgia who was relieved of $75,000 he’d raised from relatives to buy a restaurant in Louisiana.

Makes me question the validity of 'shady'.

In our justice system a person is innocent until proven guilty, and this is diametrically opposed to that principle.

Absolutely. No police officer with any sort of conscience and respect for due process would even try to do what the others have done.

The real problem here is that it is apparently so costly (time and money) to contest that it will certainly harm innocents.

For sure. It even states that in the article.

It might take a year or two. And several trips back to the jurisdiction where you were pulled over.

So I guess whenever you see a police department roll out a fancy vehicle (or a few), then you have to wonder, just where they got the money from. Was it through a legitimate method, or was it through strong-arming the tourist into giving them money?

Question the validity of shady? It just stands to reason that anyone looking to engage in criminal activity wouldn't be using a major credit card to do it. They would certainly use cash.

You can't assume everyone is up to no good because they're carrying cash instead of a credit card.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to have a credit card. One might not like the sky-high interest rates; one might not be old enough (and that's subjective) to have one, or one might not have their credit built up well enough for a credit card. Some might just be old fashioned and just use their savings for a trip. But regardless of the reason, the police MUST prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person has obtained their funds illegitimately, instead of this legalized shakedown.

I'm amused at Ferno's indignation considering he was part of the contingent that was trying to tell me these things don't happen without courts hearing the case first! Lol.

Ferno wrote:You can't assume everyone is up to no good because they're carrying cash instead of a credit card.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to have a credit card. One might not like the sky-high interest rates; one might not be old enough (and that's subjective) to have one, or one might not have their credit built up well enough for a credit card. Some might just be old fashioned and just use their savings for a trip. But regardless of the reason, the police MUST prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person has obtained their funds illegitimately, instead of this legalized shakedown.

I agree 100% that the police shouldn't be doing this. But I also think that driving around with that kind of cash isn't a prudent idea even if it weren't for police thugs. What if your car were stolen? What if you got into a car accident? The traditional safe place for money is a bank, and even if you don't want to or can't use a credit card, you can still retrieve that money via check or debit card.

I'll second Jeff250's point about large amounts of cash being problematic. Just out of college, I briefly worked as a property claims adjuster, and it was absolutely stunning how many people thought that it was a good idea to keep thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) of dollars under their mattress, as if was somehow safer... and then lost it all in a theft.

Jeff250 wrote:I agree 100% that the police shouldn't be doing this. But I also think that driving around with that kind of cash isn't a prudent idea even if it weren't for police thugs. What if your car were stolen? What if you got into a car accident? The traditional safe place for money is a bank, and even if you don't want to or can't use a credit card, you can still retrieve that money via check or debit card.

That is true, and even moreso now. If you were to get in an accident with cash in the car, or it was stolen, you can fill out an insurance claim with your representative insurance company and declare all valuables inside, including aftermarket and incidentals.

I suspect the insurance claim will not cover lost cash.

Ferno wrote:You can't assume everyone is up to no good because they're carrying cash instead of a credit card.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons not to have a credit card. One might not like the sky-high interest rates; one might not be old enough (and that's subjective) to have one, or one might not have their credit built up well enough for a credit card. Some might just be old fashioned and just use their savings for a trip. But regardless of the reason, the police MUST prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person has obtained their funds illegitimately, instead of this legalized shakedown.

No you can't make that assumption--you're right. I would say the only right way to prosecute the problem would be to charge them at the scene of the transaction/illegal activity.