Woman stopped at airport with $46,950 sues DEA

[Masquerade]

This article claims that passengers have to file a currency report if taking more than $10,000 out of the country. Is that correct? When I flew INTO the US I had to fill in a customs form which had a box to tick if you were bringing in more than $10,000 [I wasnt] but when flying home I was at no point given any forms or asked about how much cash I was carrying. [Yes I did have over $10K by then [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]]

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
She's not guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof should be with law enforcement, not her. The drug war is an excuse to take away civil liberties.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's enough to make one a Libertarian.

Oh, wait, I'm already a Libertarian.

[nycplayer]

The money will be returned in about 3 years. That is how long the gov't will be able to appeal/stonewall/etc. Fairly typical in these cases.
Google "Steve Jackson Games Secret Service" for another case of the friendly Feds seizing assets from the innocent.

[StevieG]

[ QUOTE ]
The money will be returned in about 3 years. That is how long the gov't will be able to appeal/stonewall/etc. Fairly typical in these cases.
Google "Steve Jackson Games Secret Service" for another case of the friendly Feds seizing assets from the innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]

SJ Games vs. The Secret Service

[StevieG]

this link seems closer to this case

[coffeecrazy1]

Heh...me too...which reminds me...I need to pay my dues for this year.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
notice this happened in february, and we're just seeing a lawsuit being filed four months later. I'm sure she's been trying to get it back.


[/ QUOTE ]

that's pretty clear evidence the Government likely had probable cause. they probably had a warrant (issued form a judge upon shwoing of probable cause) and had been following her before the flight. otherwise she would have had a hearing much, much sooner. the fact that she had to file suit 4 months later suggests the government had at least probable cause to suspect she was carrying cash related to illegal activities and did not just randomly pick her out and take her cash. she is probably suing under the civil asset forfeiture reform act instead of taking advantage of administrative remedies under the CSA for establishing probable cause. clearly shady, shady stuff by both sides though.

here's a post I recently made in mid-high limit holdem on this issue

[ QUOTE ]

You won't easily find and digest it (maybe you will but its subtle and implicates a lot more than the following sections- this is only a brief example of one area of law- federal drug laws- other areas like smuggling and terroism have similar provisions), but long story short 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) authorizes the forfeiture of "[a]ll moneys * * * furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance * * *, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys * * * used or intended to be used to facilitate" illegal drug activities.

Furthermore, 21 U.S.C. § 881(b) provides for the seizure of assets without a warrant in certain situations, one of which is "(4) the Attorney General has probable cause to believe that the property is subject to civil forfeiture under this subchapter."

This is OK because this section provides for a "prompt" hearing in which the Goverment must prove they had 'probable cause" to seize the assets wihtout a warrant (if they got a warrant they established probable cause to the judge who issued the warrant), thus satifying the consitutional protection against the deprivation of property without due process of law.

Unwarranted seizure doesn't happen as much anymore since the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, which makes it harder for the Government to justify seizure and provides remedies to someone whose property is illegaly seized, amongst other things, but warrantless seizure is still authorized by federal law.

Unless you have drugs on you or you look and act like a complete whackjob seizure won't even be on the radar but warrantless seizure of cash and other property *can* happen in certain (thankfully rare) circumstances. criminal law is some scary sh!t



[/ QUOTE ]

[other1]

Nationals + visitors have different forms.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
SJ Games vs. The Secret Service

[/ QUOTE ]

Btw, if you want to read more on this subject. The book "Hacker Crackdown" is freely available on the internet(legally).

[BluffTHIS!]

Although I am a conservative, I don't really like these type of laws either. That being said, does anyone here really believe this woman is NOT transporting the proceeds/payment for illegal merchandise/actions of some kind when she merely could have carried a certified check made payable to the tummy tuck/big boob guy?