Midtopia points to an article reporting that a federal appeals court has held that simply physically possessing a large amount of cash is reasonable grounds for confiscation of the cash.
Sean Aqui asks, in response:
Clearly, the details are important here. But shouldn’t the money — or at least the owner — be actually connected to a crime before police can seize his property?
I’d have to agree. It’s true that carrying around large amounts of cash leads to certain assumptions, most of which are indicative of criminal activity, and some of which could be taken as indications of imminent or near-imminent danger.
However, aren’t we supposed to have a presumption of innocence? I’d expect that law enforcement officials would have to have some reason to believe that the large stash of cash is criminal in nature beyond the stash itself.
It’s a kind of extension of the debate over police surveilance cameras, isn’t it? Privacy advocates (including armchair ones, like myself) are uncomfortable with the idea of the police watching our every move. However, we only theoretically have a problem if we have illegal activity we need to hide. Therefore, we “shouldn’t” be bothered by the cameras if we obey the law.
Similarly, we apparently “shouldn’t ” be upset by confiscation of large piles of cash because apparently the only reason we would have a large pile of cash is for illegality.
That just doesn’t seem quite right. Understandable, but still not right..