The issue wasn't whether or not they declared it, but the fact that TSA saw it when inspecting carry-on baggage and became suspicious, thus setting the other events in motion (and, IMO, being partially responsible for the whole thing). I have to believe that if you banked with a large enough commercial bank you could just deposit the money in PR and access it once back home (which I'd prefer to carrying it anyways). Another option is always purchasing a pre-paid debit card for the amount, sticking it in your wallet and being safe against loss or theft.

Notwithstanding what you would prefer, why should any American citizen, traveling within America, carrying something completely legal (with accompanying proof that it is completely legal), be subject to seizure of property for half a year, as well as illegal efforts (if the factual assertions are true) at forfeiture by the government? Do the Fourth and Fifth Amendments mean nothing to you?

Why should I have proof that the money I am carrying is legal? If I have $100 nobody is going to question me or ask for pr:rolleyes::rolleyes:f that I have come by the money legally. Why should the amount even matter?

You shouldn't. If the facts recited in the opinion are accurate, the whole situation is beyond outrageous.

Oh gee, did I forget to mention the dog?

What is the statistic I read . . . that 90% of U.S. currency has cocaine residue on it? So, get enough a large enough stack of bills ($97,000 ought to do it!) and it's no surprise the dog handler was able to get his dog to alert to it.

Not much of an option given the fees involved, low load limits for cash deposits and low daily withdrawl limits. Even the best cards have relatively low load limits for direct deposit trannies and overall total balance. The appellants in the cited case would have needed 10 cards to do you what you suggest.

State law claims (such as false arrest) made against the federal government generally have to be preceeded with an administrative claim, to which they are allowed 6 months to accept (and send me a check for the $1M that I asked for ;)), deny, or fail to respond (most likely). Feb. 29, 2012. :)

--Jon

I can't believe they're still pulling this BS. The courts are well aware of this statistic and have ruled against seizure claims when this is the only "evidence" presented. The fact that CBP agents are then still seizing money using this excuse and not being sanctioned for it makes me wonder why we even have a legal system in this country. If one side(the government) is basically allowed to act with total disregard, even outright disdain, for the laws they're suppose to be upholding, then all truly is lost.

Thank you for mentioning that. I had noted it while reading the opinion and meant to post about it. Yes -- a HUGE percentage of US currency has traces of cocaine on it. There have been numerous cases :)f judges ruling against seizures of cash based solely on traces of drugs. This case was one notable example.

Because there is no reason for them to not act like that.

A few clarifications:

First, these were DEA agents and not CBP. Second, this incident did not happen yesterday . . . this was 2006. Finally, the agents would not be "sanctioned" unless the seizure were actually challenged in court, and this case hasn't made it that far yet.

Xyzzy - I love the judge's conclusion (in the Jones case you cited) that the probative value of the dog sniff in that case was "microscopic" - a not so subtle reference to the quantity of narcotics that drug dogs are known to be able to detect! :D :D :D

Sorry, you're correct. The CBP did the initial tip-off only, it was the DEA that made the seizure. Still, if the only reason for the seizure was a supposed hit by the dog then the cash should have never been seized in the first place. The courts have been ruling for over a decade that a trace evidence of drugs on money is not enough to justify a seizure. The court shouldn't have to keep ruling against the DEA over and over again for this to finally get through their empty heads.

and leave more of a trail and add to governmental agencies that you need to deal with?

IRs and CBP is bad enough, by doing this you are inviting CSIS, CBSA, CRA on the Canadian side and DEA, FBI maybe more to the "table".

At one time there was a story of someone's attorney approaching major lottery ticket winners to buy their tickets at winning plus a percentage to legitimize their client's money.

True -- but the DEA is banking on the fact that a l:(t of people are not likely to either have proof of the legitimacy of their money, or the will/ability to fight for it. In those cases, the DEA gets to use it. Therin lies the crux of the problem. Those who are confiscating the goods (in this case ca$h) are entitled to use it. If that were not the case we would not be seeing these cases again and again. If anyone but the DEA/police did this it would be called extortion/racketeering.

I agree with you, in principle. But, the transaction will be reported anyway, as is legally required, either by the traveler using the FINCEN 104, or the bank using whatever form they are required to file, which I think is FINCEN 105.

The DEA is already involved, as the FINCEN forms are their idea (FINCEN stands for Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) and FINCEN is part of Treasury as is IRS. These forms have OMB control numbers and in their required statement of purpose, they state that they are used and may be provided to "Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and any other constituent unit of the Department of the Treasury. . .may be referred to any other department or agency of the Federal Government. . .upon request . . . may also be provided to appropriate state, local, and foreign criminal law enforcement. . ."

In other words, you travel across the border with >= $10k, every busy body knows everything about everything, once you file that form, or can easily find out by asking treasury.

What is worse, if you make a cash payment to anyone greater than $10k, the business is required to file a FINCEN/IRS form 8300. Where this might come into play is a private cash transaction: Let's say you seek the advice of an attorney when a DEA agent threatens to seize your money for arbitrary and capricious reasons. The attorney agrees to represent you, in exchange for a retainer of $10k. You give him $8k cash and a $2k cashier's check. The attorney is now required to file the FINCEN 8300 letting the IRS (and presumably the DEA) know you paid cash to a lawyer. That's why my patent attorney prefers personal checks or credit card payments. The IRS/DEA/Treasury/Gov't can simply follow the money and gain a great deal of knowledge about out from the money trail.

Cash is not nearly as untraceable as it seems. The ObamaCare act even had a provision that required your local office supply store report if you paid more than $600/year for supplies before that was repealed.

Affection on a separate thread discussed the concept of a constitutional amendment to try and re-vitalize the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. I like this idea, but think he's taking an overly narrow perspective. The amendment should be a privacy amendment, to stop just what you are talking about and end government "administrative" Writs of Assistance which then turn into fishing expeditions like the present one.