Originally Posted by
pmocek
I'm still curious what you meant by "arresting a person pending a trial". The two things, arrest and trial, seem to be only tangentially related. Best I can tell, an arrest does not always lead to a trial, and detention is different than arrest.
Since there seems a little room left for civil discourse now, I'll reply. I suppose I used the term "arrest" to include the entire period of pre-trial detention. It was sloppiness of diction.
Originally Posted by
pmocek
Lawful and legitimate does not mean just. We've imposed a $175,000 fine on someone who is supposed to be innocent in the eyes of the law. You, Deeg, someone who says he has worked in law enforcement, seem unconcerned with the unjust nature of this circumstance, and that's disturbing.
I get it. I really do. I just don't think there's any other way of doing it. If the money were not seized and the traveler allowed to keep it pending the forfeiture process, then there is probably a better than even chance that the government wouldn't ever get the money.
I should also point out that small currency seizures are usually not handled this way. If, hypothetically, the traveler [I'm avoiding "violator" for you] had failed to declare $12,000, the process would have been different. In that case, the traveler would have an additional option to those I already presented: admit the violation on the spot, pay perhaps a $1,000 fine, and get the rest of the money back. It varies by location, judicial district, local policy, etc, but the on-site mitigated penalty process is fairly common. In this case, the traveler is actually pretty lucky that they weren't charged criminally. Once the cash gets up to that amount, prosecutions are quite common.