Domestic has no limit, although if you can into contact with a LEO that much money will raise eyebrows.

Once again, the instructions on the FinCen105 clearly state that it is to be filed "at the time of departure", so a strict reading of the law makes it illegal to file at any point other than the moment the plane is pulling away from the gate. At which point, of course, it is impossible to file, meaning that the law is impossible to comply with.

No, presumption of innocence is something I get to enjoy while I'm walking down the street, or through an airport terminal, just as much as in a court of law.

And of course, you regularly correspond with your congressman to complain about this unacceptable breach of citizen's liberty?


Doesn't look that way.


You never have "proof of submittal" any more than you have proof of filing your tax return.


We were discussing a situation in which an officer asks, "how much money are you carrying?" and the traveller responds truthfully with some amount over 10K USD, and the officer then asks, "did you file a FinCen 105?" and the traveller responds, "did I what?", which is going to be the case 99% of the time. Once again, that individual could not be charged with a criminal offence, and you should stop trying to confuse things by innappropriately introducing a reference to an entirely different situation, one in which there was an active effort to deliberately conceal and mislead. You dishonestly introduced that reference into the discussion knowing full well it wasn't in any way comparable to the hypothetical situation under discussion, so maybe you should drop all the "straw man" references.

Sounds to me like every time your eyebrows go up, somebody gets pointlessly hassled.

I normally don't post pictures of people on forums but with law dawg's photo I have decided to make an exception.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6wZorx90Ia...ck+eyebrow.gif

You misunderstand the meaning of presumption of innocence. It means that, before you can be convicted of a crime, the state must meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Should it fail to do so, you are not guilty by law.

It has no meaning on the street. Police have no burden of proof, and may investigate based on reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc.

That's not true at all -- the police can't simply go around arresting everyone they don't like the looks of and justify it by saying, "what's the big deal, if they're innocent, the courts will clear them." By law, everyone is presumed innocent unless there is evidence to the contrary. Even for a two-minute stop, a cop is the one who has the burden of demonstrating there was some good reason for that stop, whereas for you to sue the cop for harassment and abuse of authority, you don't have to demonstrate any lack of suspicious activity at all. If the cops are unable to provide a reasonable justification for the stop, you would win the case.

That's not to say that such "reasonable suspicion" cannot be based on an honest misunderstanding on the cop's part, i.e., the stop doesn't have to ultimately lead to a conviction for it to have been reasonable.

Getting back to the topic at hand, having a lot of money is not in and of itself indicative of a crime. I remember when I was about 16, I was standing on a corner, talking to a girl with a dark green bottle in my hand. There was a stop sign at the corner, and a cop pulled up and said, "let me see the bottle". The label (which said "ginger ale") was facing away from him. I just looked at him. He repeated his "request" (which was starting to sound more like a demand to me). I said "no", and he got out, grabbed the bottle, looked at the label, sniffed it and handed it back to me, then got back in his police-mobile and drove off. At 16, I let it go. Now, I would sue. It's the same thing -- seeing a guy on the street with a bottle in his hand is not in and of itself suspicious enough to warrant a stop. Seeing a guy weaving down the sidewalk with a bottle in his hand singing "where have all the good times gone?" off-key at the top of his lungs probably does.

That's not what I said. Read it again:

You misunderstand the meaning of presumption of innocence. It means that, before you can be convicted of a crime, the state must meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Should it fail to do so, you are not guilty by law.

It has no meaning on the street. Police have no burden of proof, and may investigate based on reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc.

One more time: the presumption of innocence is a concept that applies to a court adjudication of guilt only.

LEOs can't detain or arrest or seize without meeting the appropriate standard. It has nothing to do with presumption of innocence, but with the 5th and, particularly, the 4th Amendment.

You seem to be mixing up a legal definition with a practical definition. "Presumption of innocence" has a specific meaning within a legal context, but it also has a general, conceptual meaning. The law is based on that concept, which existed before it was codified into law. It's fine to engage in legal hair-splitting in a court of law; walking down the street, irrespective of what any law says or what any LEO believes, I have a right to be able to go about my business without having to prove that I'm not breaking the law. If you would rather use a different terminology than "presumption of innocence" for that, it's all the same to me, as long as it doesn't impact the practical end-result.

Sorry, but it is you who kept applying a legal definition to a "practical" situation in which it has no meaning.

You are correct that you have no obligation to prove you are not committing a crime. I think where the disagreement is coming from is the amount of suspicion that you feel is required before an officer can make contact and investigate.

Take your Ginger Ale example above. In your mind you do not feel that being 16, holding a green bottle and standing on a street corner rose to the proper level of suspicion to allow an officer to investigate what you were drinking.

In that case you were wrong. Remember that reasonable suspicion is a lot lower than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion equals a possibility that a crime has or is being committed. Probable cause equals a likelihood that a crime has or is being committed.

Reasonable suspicion is enough for an officer to make contact and question you.

Based on the officer's experience and training it would be reasonable for him to think that there is a possibility (reasonable suspicion) you are committing the crime of underage drinking based on the following. The color of the bottle, your age, location and behavior.

Based on the officer's experience and training he knows the following;

1. Few soft drink bottles are green, but a fair amount of beer bottles are green
2. You are too young to possess alcohol
3. A fair amount of underage drinkers hang out on the street corner hitting on girls

Other things he may know that would increase the level of suspicion beyond a reasonable level;

1. A convenience store close to your location may be under investigation for selling alcohol to under age customers
2. The police received a tip about someone under age drinking on that corner

Who are you and how did you get my photo?

Yep, just what I said. Thank you.

Actually you can make contact and question at a lot lower level - like mere suspicion. Reasonable suspicion makes a forced detention possible, should the LEO wish. At less than RS the citizen may break off contact and walk away and there's nothing the LEO can do about it. At RS the officer can keep the citizen there and question them.

Yup, yup.