You need to show the cash came from a legitimate source if you’re transporting it. (Not okay, but it is what it is)
Coming directly out of a bank (and hence tracked by the gov’t already) is a legitimate source.
If you have a receipt showing you just withdrew it from a bank account, even if they’re stupid enough to seize it, the court is going to give it right back to you - along with a civil settlement.
> If you have a receipt showing you just withdrew it from a bank account, even if they’re stupid enough to seize it, the court is going to give it right back to you - along with a civil settlement.
This isn't true. You'll probably get the money back, but it will take a couple months and cost a couple thousand in attorney's fees (which the courts will not reimburse)
Unless you get a lot of press, and/or have someone like the Institute for Justice fighting on your behalf, that's not a given.
There's a playbook that local/state and federal agencies have.
If a local/state agency seizes your cash, then they can just kick it up to the feds. Then any suit you file will have to be against the federal government. This increases your costs and difficulty.
The local/state agency is fine with this, because they have an agreement (see "Equitable Sharing"[1]) to get 80% of the money back.
Maybe, but they’d need a really high bar if you had the paperwork with you to not have to pay out. It’s true though that it would require some fighting. But that’s true of any cop misbehavior, unfortunately.
Civil penalties for this behavior means if you prevail (and it’s an egregious case), you can more than make up for it. Many attorneys will take such cases on contingency, as the odds are pretty good.
That’s because the moment someone lawyers up and appears to have a case, they give the funds back to avoid creating bad precedent. So it doesn’t go to court.
The best trick is the court case will not be against you, it will be against the money itself, as in "State of Indiana vs. $50,000". Your money has no rights, so it gets no public defender nor any other rights.
And plenty of attorneys would take a case like that on contingency if you would present even halfway decently in court, and win - and get you a nice payout on top of it.
Since they can say ‘Your honor, the prosecution can not identify any articulable factual basis, or even concrete suspicion as to why they should have seized my clients money. The money my client just withdrew from the bank that he earned lawfully, paid taxes on, was held in a regulated institution, and that he intended to use for lawful purposes.
In fact, as is clear from opposing councils arguments, they not only didn’t even attempt to investigate to discover if a lawful basis existed to seize my clients funds, they actively ignored documentation that my client attempted to provide them showing the funds were from a legal source.
Additionally, it’s clear they have since been unable to identify any lawful reason besides a generic ‘my training and experience says this was okay’, and in fact are not even able to identify which parts of their training and experience support it, even with x months of time.
This is in violation of the federal rules around these seizures (cut and paste the sections), and their own policies (cut-n-paste from their policy book).
Additionally, that they persist in not only defending these tactics, but continuing to keep my law abiding clients funds, shows a complete and continuing disregard for the law, my clients rights as a law abiding citizen of this great nation, their own policies, and the integrity of this court. ’
If they still persisted (historically they haven’t, even in far more ambiguous cases), I can’t imagine a judge being unsympathetic to punitive damages (3x) on top of everything else.
It wouldn’t be hard to make an argument that literal criminal gangs are less dangerous to society than a police agency acting that way in such a case.
"In April, police inspectors at the Indianapolis FedEx distribution center seized a box containing nearly $43,000 in cash. Even though no criminal charges have been filed in connection with the package, it’s been in the government’s possession for about four months. "
and
"In court documents, the Marion County prosecutor’s office wrote that shipments of bulk cash are typically associated with criminal activity. Even though Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department dogs alerted handlers to the smell of drugs in the box, no contraband could be found once it was opened."
It happens, and the cops just lie to courts, and they get away with it. They especially get away with it when they steal from the sorts of people who do not have easy access to lawyers, and who are not in a position to have tens of thousands of dollars tied up for months or years while cops lie to judges.
Coming directly out of a bank (and hence tracked by the gov’t already) is a legitimate source.
If you have a receipt showing you just withdrew it from a bank account, even if they’re stupid enough to seize it, the court is going to give it right back to you - along with a civil settlement.