comment: >
  
  A citizen has a right to the privacy of their person and papers from warrantless searches, which is what this was. Is he guilty of something? Maybe. Hell,  probably even. 
  But that still doesn't give the cops a right to search him without a warrant and seize his property without the reasonable suspicion of a crime.
context: But we definitely need a boars defense force! >
  
  Why is no one else talking about the grave threat boars are to America?!? >
  
  Big Boar is in the pocket of politicians. >
  
  Never travel anywhere with cash. Your local police department would love to buy a margarita maker with your “drug money” >
  
  They want paperwork for anything over 10k. Ridiculous if you ask me >
  
  Yup. If dude filled out a FinCEN-105 form he could have stated any range of perfectly acceptable reasons (true or not) and they wouldn't have been able to get shit on him. They didn't bust him for the cash, they got him on the technicality of not having declared it. And from there justified a search of his messages and found that he mentioned drugs in a conversation (however they're interpreting that) sometime prior to May. Now they get to seize it despite no crime having been proved. 
  
  Right now no criminal charges have been filed, but Kimble said the investigation is likely ongoing.
  “I think it is premature to say whether there will be charges or just the forfeiture,” Kimble said
  
  Translation "If we can't prove a crime, at least we got your money, bitch!" >
  
  Does that apply to domestic flights? I get the impression this was a domestic flight, though I haven't been able to find out if that is the case. It did say he had flown back and forth between California and the East Coast dozens of times so I assumed this was another such case. >
  
  The form, no. FinCen 105 is specifically for border control.
  Civil forfeiture, I believe, yes. If the government can give a reason to seize your cash, they can. >
  
  Any assets really, not just cash, and they have used some pretty spurious reasons to get it too >
  
  Better title: cops saw some cash on the security scanners and decided to take it. >
  
  I'm legit wondering whether the dogs actually detected drugs on the money or were trained to detect the money itself >
  
  Public has zero oversight on the supposed "training" of these dogs. 
  And yet lives are overturned based on just a few seconds of behavior from these dogs. >
  
  And IIRC, there were several studies that showed they were only accurate 50% of the time in many cases.
  On top of it, they can be made to alert on command by the officer to justify violating fourth amendment rights. >
  
  dyk that in this "land of the free" cops can just take your money if they think it's more than you ought to have on you?
  and that the burden of proof is reversed; you must then prove to a judge that you were not up to something nefarious >
  
  Wow, you were not kidding that it literally shifts.  
  Yo, thanks for the read! >
  
  
  Cops steal $45k in cash at airport
  
  Fixed the title. >
  
  Yeah you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. WTF >
  
  Cops can literally steal your money without charging you with any crime whatsoever. But it's ok because America is a "free" country. >
  
  I'm sure the feds enjoyed stealing it from him. >
  
  Why can’t you carry your own cash around? >
  
  You can carry cash.  However if you get stopped for anything and the cops find it they can seize the cash by assuming you got it illegally and do not have to prove or even allege you did anything illegal. >
  
  But this person wasn't "stopped for anything". Cops found cash in his luggage and decided to take it. And they are legally allowed to, because you have no rights and your "justice system" is a joke. >
  
  Actually it is the Cash that has no rights.  The forfeiture is 'in Rem' meaning the cause of action is not against you but the cash itself.   And civil forfeiture laws in all states than place the burden of proof on the cash to prove that it was obtained legally and not the result of illegal activity.  A system that is ripe for abuse. >
  
  The "in Rem" cases I've heard about just seem weird because I don't really get the legal justification for charging the thing instead of the person who owns the thing.
  But it sure does lead to some hilarious case names! My favorite is probably South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats. >
  
  My favorite is United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls >
  
  The "More or Less" is what really does it for that one, I think. >
  
  Legal Eagle did a video where he talked about the case, and it includes some fabulous TV commercial footage for the toy. (And yes, this is where I heard about jurisdiction in Rem cases.) >
  
  Guys with guns took that man's money. This was an armed robbery.
  Also of note is the fact that the first line of the news story states it was drug money. Now why is it that the guy who is arrested for a murder caught on camera with multiple witnesses gets called an alleged murderer, but this guy's cash is maligned as drug money as if this is a natural fact without any evidence to support that? >
  
  
  claimed he worked as a party promoter for the rapper Polo G, but was unable to provide a name of his business or its registration.  
  Court documents say he then claimed to sell French bulldogs and pit bulls, but later admitted that wasn’t true. According to those documents, he also claimed to have earned the money from playing football at California University of Pennsylvania, from winning a $50 sports bet on FanDuel, from family, and from pandemic unemployment assistance.  
  Investigators said they looked at his Cash App history and found 1,400 transactions between May 2021 and May 2022, with some having references to drugs. They also said he took 35 flights between the East Coast and California over two years
  
  Yeah, probably just a good guy who doesn't like banks.