amount of cash

[Ioz]

If you bank at a national bank, chances are there is a branch in Vegas, just make a withdrawl when you get there.

[Clover362]

OK so i just talked to a TSA representitive. For Domestic Flights There is no limit on the Amount of money you can carry. They told me to ask for a privet screening and to be prepaired to answer a few more additional questions so to allow about 20-30 more minutes for going through security but unless they find something illeagal in your possesion they cannot confiscate your cash.
As far as the stories of people being pulled over and getting screwed bu the police, that is a different situation than declaring a large amount of cash at an airport security checkpoint. Police investigate possible crime, Airport security's purpose is to make sure that you are safe to fly.

[Poker_is_Hard]

[ QUOTE ]
OK so i just talked to a TSA representitive. For Domestic Flights There is no limit on the Amount of money you can carry. They told me to ask for a privet screening and to be prepaired to answer a few more additional questions so to allow about 20-30 more minutes for going through security but unless they find something illeagal in your possesion they cannot confiscate your cash.
As far as the stories of people being pulled over and getting screwed bu the police, that is a different situation than declaring a large amount of cash at an airport security checkpoint. Police investigate possible crime, Airport security's purpose is to make sure that you are safe to fly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you ask for a private screening up front or ask for a private screening if they find the cash?

If you have the cash on you it is not going to set off anything.

[michelle227]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a pretty well publicized case about a year ago where 3 guys flew to Chicago from Mexico with approx $130K in cash. They rented a van and were driving to another state when a police officer stopped them. The cash was confiscated and kept even though the guys were never convicted of any crime.

The police had some probable cause. Namely that the 3 guys were not US citizens, they had traveled on one way tickets, were carrying a large amount of cash and drug dogs alerted to some of the cash. In addition, the guys were evasive about who had rented the van (this could have been partly due to the fact that they did not speak English). The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in the end, the state kept the cash even though they could not prove that any crime had been committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have to pull the case again, but from memory, it was a case in Nebraska. The money was bundled in odd amounts, but it also allegedly had enough trace residue to alert the dogs...never mind that just about anyone with at least $100 on them will have enough trace residue to alert a dog.

They had gone to purchase a truck and wound up not making the purchase. The cash was bundled in the increments that each person had contributed to the potential purchase. However, one alert from the dog and it was gone.

As I recall, there was a dissenting opinion in the case, but it remains controlling for that Circuit and the cash remains gone to those poor schmucks from whom it was confiscated.

(yeah, criminal law is one of my daily involvements)

[Clover362]

[ QUOTE ]

I would have to pull the case again, but from memory, it was a case in Nebraska. The money was bundled in odd amounts, but it also allegedly had enough trace residue to alert the dogs...never mind that just about anyone with at least $100 on them will have enough trace residue to alert a dog.



[/ QUOTE ]

I Hate to be judgemental of our neighbors to the south but a 130K in cash from mexico I believe would a bit more "contaminated" than a big group of mostley new hundreds from banks and several of the massive casinos.

[SmartBugger]

[ QUOTE ]

As others have posted, having large amounts of cash alone is not grounds for confiscation, but probable cause can include such things as acting nervously, dogs finding drug residue on some of the $100 bills, telling the officer a story that doesn't completely check out, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is totally incorrect. Large sums of cash and acting nervously do not constitute probable cause at all.

[SmartBugger]

[ QUOTE ]

I would have to pull the case again, but from memory, it was a case in Nebraska. The money was bundled in odd amounts, but it also allegedly had enough trace residue to alert the dogs...never mind that just about anyone with at least $100 on them will have enough trace residue to alert a dog.



[/ QUOTE ]


You are talking about the Eighth Circuit Appeals court. This court is controversial because of its strong republican stance (people have argue the court acts more as an arm for the republican.... but then again, you got other courts that are almost all democrats). But currently, the Eighth circuit court is the only court at the moment that believes large-sums-of-cash is probable cause.


This type of case is one the Supreme Court is considering. Historically, the Supreme Court has mandated that confiscation of property is in violation of people's right when the value of the property is greater than the punishment for the crime. Think of it this way.... police officer pulls you over for speeding, but decides to take your brand-new E-class benz instead of writing you a ticket.


One thing I do not understand. I read the judges decision (and there was some decent) but the government is still legally obligated to return seized property. In other words, if the government wants to keep the money... they must go to court. I can't find any evidence that he is challenging for the money back. I suppose they are appealing the decision first.... but bit odd I can't find more about the case.

[Wongboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As others have posted, having large amounts of cash alone is not grounds for confiscation, but probable cause can include such things as acting nervously, dogs finding drug residue on some of the $100 bills, telling the officer a story that doesn't completely check out, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is totally incorrect. Large sums of cash and acting nervously do not constitute probable cause at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking of the case that you mention in your next post. The suspects behavior was part of the probable cause cited, I believe (although I could be mistaken). Large sums of cash was definately part of the probable cause in that case. I would actually be relieved to learn that this was just a rogue court and most courts do not consider a large amount of cash to be probable cause.

[SmartBugger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As others have posted, having large amounts of cash alone is not grounds for confiscation, but probable cause can include such things as acting nervously, dogs finding drug residue on some of the $100 bills, telling the officer a story that doesn't completely check out, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is totally incorrect. Large sums of cash and acting nervously do not constitute probable cause at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking of the case that you mention in your next post. The suspects behavior was part of the probable cause cited, I believe (although I could be mistaken). Large sums of cash was definately part of the probable cause in that case. I would actually be relieved to learn that this was just a rogue court and most courts do not consider a large amount of cash to be probable cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can consider it a rouge court decision. Those courts often disagree on a whole group of issues... and this is just one of them (and why the Supreme court is likely to deal with it in the future).

What is interesting is the court said you need to look at the "whole picture". It seemed like the main point of their decision was the fact the guy couldn't explain where the money came from. To me, that seems to go against the individual's 5th amendment. In the seventh court of Appeals... there was a case where some police-officer found 30k and then used that as probable cause to find drugs. The court went strongly against the police saying they violated his rights. So yes... it all depends.




Some courts use common sense and make the law work to that.


Some courts ignore common sense all together and try to paint a black and white picture.


Supreme Court tends to look at the real big picture and understands there is a slippery slope. They are great of creating a verdict on points that seem unrelated to the case. They also seem to always agree to have the vote almost equal so people think there was some doubt in their minds (yep... they do that on purpose .... might as well be politicians)

[pocketpared]

If you plead the fifth at a trial in federal district court the judge can instruct the jury that your refusal to testify can be held against you and the judge may prevent you from entering certain exhibits into evidence.