Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
So since the guy was found NOT GUILTY, the cops should still be able to keep the money? That's BS. Why would he not lie, he has poor english skills, didn't rent the car himself due to the lack of credit, carrying large sums of money and doesn't want to make the cops suspicious....

Read the court document. And yes, the govt. can keep the money. Read the document.

It doesn't change the fact that the reasons the govt. can keep the money are bs.

 

[quakefiend420]

i think i need to post what i posted on another forum last week or so when this topic came around, it expresses my feelings pretty well...

how can any one of you who are actually a fvcking "american"(and i use the term loosely at this point, considering that if you support this you don't really believe in personal freedom anyway and should just move to russia or cuba or something) condone something like this?

let me ask you this, a civilian that didn't have a badge, a gun, and employment from the government stopped this person and took his cooler full of cash away from him, what would we call that?

fvcking highway robbery in the truest sense of the word, that's what.

get a fvcking clue people...if you really love this country and what it was founded on and is supposed to stand for you should be outraged at this...so what if he was mexican and didn't speak english very well...he still was not proven to have done a godamn thing wrong, and should have gotten his fvcking money back.

it was never mentioned that he was not a citizen, so i have to assume he is, and should have the same rights as the rest of us...and if you actually think this was appropriate, show me a law that states that this was legal WHEN NOTHING ILLEGAL WAS PROVEN TO HAVE BEEN GOING ON!

i'm disgusted with many of you and embarassed to call you my countrymen

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
1. it's none of his ****** business how much money he had...besides, would you tell a cop you had 124K? what's to stop him from taking it and sending you on your way?READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
2. i guess you missed the part about him having no significant criminal history, huh? :rolleyes; READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
3. where does it say he lied to the cop about who rented the car for him? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
4. for that matter, where does it say he lied about the source of the money? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
5. a good percentage of currency in circulation has drug residue on it, not to mention it's a ****** rental car that god knows how many people had driven previously
6. now this is just stupid

and wtf was he guilty of, exactly? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT

you're a ****** communist

I'm far from a communist, but you evidently aren't very far from a dumbass.
Again:
READ THE FVCKING COURT DOCUMENT.
It's all in there. Read it, and quit shooting your e-mouth off when you don't know what you're even talking about.
And I'm not saying I even agree with this decision. Nowhere have I said that.

I did say that I feel it is likely the dude was a drug smuggler, though. That has nothing to do with whether I think they should keep his money or not.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
1. it's none of his ****** business how much money he had...besides, would you tell a cop you had 124K? what's to stop him from taking it and sending you on your way?READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
2. i guess you missed the part about him having no significant criminal history, huh? :rolleyes; READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
3. where does it say he lied to the cop about who rented the car for him? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
4. for that matter, where does it say he lied about the source of the money? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
5. a good percentage of currency in circulation has drug residue on it, not to mention it's a ****** rental car that god knows how many people had driven previously
6. now this is just stupid

and wtf was he guilty of, exactly? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT

you're a ****** communist

I'm far from a communist, but you evidently aren't very far from a dumbass.
Again:
READ THE FVCKING COURT DOCUMENT.
It's all in there. Read it, and quit shooting your e-mouth off when you don't know what you're even talking about.
And I'm not saying I even agree with this decision. Nowhere have I said that.

I did say that I feel it is likely the dude was a drug smuggler, though. That has nothing to do with whether I think they should keep his money or not.

i just read the pdf, and edited my post accordingly, the article ommitted a few things...however he still has no drug crimes, so i don't see how that's even admissable in trying to prove a drug connection

and you still made some completely baseless assumptions

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
So since the guy was found NOT GUILTY, the cops should still be able to keep the money? That's BS. Why would he not lie, he has poor english skills, didn't rent the car himself due to the lack of credit, carrying large sums of money and doesn't want to make the cops suspicious....

Read the court document. And yes, the govt. can keep the money. Read the document.

It doesn't change the fact that the reasons the govt. can keep the money are bs.

And you can't show me anywhere I posted otherwise.
In fact, I agree that the govt's case is a bit thin, but the courts did not.
Again, read the court document.
And yes, I think the guy was likely a drug smuggler, but my thoughts on that have absolutely nothing to do with whether I think the courts should give his money back or not.
BTW, the "poor English skills" didn't fly: One of the cops spoke Spanish.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
1. it's none of his ****** business how much money he had...besides, would you tell a cop you had 124K? what's to stop him from taking it and sending you on your way?READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
2. i guess you missed the part about him having no significant criminal history, huh? :rolleyes; READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
3. where does it say he lied to the cop about who rented the car for him? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
4. for that matter, where does it say he lied about the source of the money? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
5. a good percentage of currency in circulation has drug residue on it, not to mention it's a ****** rental car that god knows how many people had driven previously
6. now this is just stupid

and wtf was he guilty of, exactly? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT

you're a ****** communist

I'm far from a communist, but you evidently aren't very far from a dumbass.
Again:
READ THE FVCKING COURT DOCUMENT.
It's all in there. Read it, and quit shooting your e-mouth off when you don't know what you're even talking about.
And I'm not saying I even agree with this decision. Nowhere have I said that.

I did say that I feel it is likely the dude was a drug smuggler, though. That has nothing to do with whether I think they should keep his money or not.

i just read the pdf, and edited my post accordingly, the article ommitted a few things...however he still has no drug crimes, so i don't see how that's even admissable in trying to prove a drug connection

and you still made some completely baseless assumptions

They are not baseless. There is plenty of reason to believe that anyone who is driving around in a rental car they didn't rent, with over 100k money wrapped up in foil and in a cooler, who gets stopped and lies to the cop about prior arrests, lies about having a large sum of money in the car, lies to the cop about who rented the car, lies about where the money came from when they do find it....there is plenty of reason to believe that individual is running drugs.
I'm not saying it's enough to convict him of such, but it is certainly enough reason to believe that whether he can be convicted or not he is in fact a drug runner.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
1. it's none of his ****** business how much money he had...besides, would you tell a cop you had 124K? what's to stop him from taking it and sending you on your way?READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
2. i guess you missed the part about him having no significant criminal history, huh? :rolleyes; READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
3. where does it say he lied to the cop about who rented the car for him? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
4. for that matter, where does it say he lied about the source of the money? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
5. a good percentage of currency in circulation has drug residue on it, not to mention it's a ****** rental car that god knows how many people had driven previously
6. now this is just stupid

and wtf was he guilty of, exactly? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT

you're a ****** communist

I'm far from a communist, but you evidently aren't very far from a dumbass.
Again:
READ THE FVCKING COURT DOCUMENT.
It's all in there. Read it, and quit shooting your e-mouth off when you don't know what you're even talking about.
And I'm not saying I even agree with this decision. Nowhere have I said that.

I did say that I feel it is likely the dude was a drug smuggler, though. That has nothing to do with whether I think they should keep his money or not.

i just read the pdf, and edited my post accordingly, the article ommitted a few things...however he still has no drug crimes, so i don't see how that's even admissable in trying to prove a drug connection

and you still made some completely baseless assumptions

They are not baseless. There is plenty of reason to believe that anyone who is driving around in a rental car they didn't rent, with over 100k money wrapped up in foil and in a cooler, who gets stopped and lies to the cop about prior arrests, lies about having a large sum of money in the car, lies to the cop about who rented the car, lies about where the money came from when they do find it....there is plenty of reason to believe that individual is running drugs.
I'm not saying it's enough to convict him of such, but it is certainly enough reason to believe that whether he can be convicted or not he is in fact a drug runner.

so it's not enough to convict him, but it's enough to call him one?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
1. it's none of his ****** business how much money he had...besides, would you tell a cop you had 124K? what's to stop him from taking it and sending you on your way?READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
2. i guess you missed the part about him having no significant criminal history, huh? :rolleyes; READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
3. where does it say he lied to the cop about who rented the car for him? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
4. for that matter, where does it say he lied about the source of the money? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
5. a good percentage of currency in circulation has drug residue on it, not to mention it's a ****** rental car that god knows how many people had driven previously
6. now this is just stupid

and wtf was he guilty of, exactly? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT

you're a ****** communist

I'm far from a communist, but you evidently aren't very far from a dumbass.
Again:
READ THE FVCKING COURT DOCUMENT.
It's all in there. Read it, and quit shooting your e-mouth off when you don't know what you're even talking about.
And I'm not saying I even agree with this decision. Nowhere have I said that.

I did say that I feel it is likely the dude was a drug smuggler, though. That has nothing to do with whether I think they should keep his money or not.

i just read the pdf, and edited my post accordingly, the article ommitted a few things...however he still has no drug crimes, so i don't see how that's even admissable in trying to prove a drug connection

and you still made some completely baseless assumptions

They are not baseless. There is plenty of reason to believe that anyone who is driving around in a rental car they didn't rent, with over 100k money wrapped up in foil and in a cooler, who gets stopped and lies to the cop about prior arrests, lies about having a large sum of money in the car, lies to the cop about who rented the car, lies about where the money came from when they do find it....there is plenty of reason to believe that individual is running drugs.
I'm not saying it's enough to convict him of such, but it is certainly enough reason to believe that whether he can be convicted or not he is in fact a drug runner.

so it's not enough to convict him, but it's enough to call him one?

Absolutely. It's enough to at least doubt his story, at minimum.
Do you doubt OJ Simpson is guilty of murder? Remember, he was found not guilty.
No difference, it's just the other way around for this guy.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
1. it's none of his ****** business how much money he had...besides, would you tell a cop you had 124K? what's to stop him from taking it and sending you on your way?READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
2. i guess you missed the part about him having no significant criminal history, huh? :rolleyes; READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
3. where does it say he lied to the cop about who rented the car for him? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
4. for that matter, where does it say he lied about the source of the money? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
5. a good percentage of currency in circulation has drug residue on it, not to mention it's a ****** rental car that god knows how many people had driven previously
6. now this is just stupid

and wtf was he guilty of, exactly? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT

you're a ****** communist

I'm far from a communist, but you evidently aren't very far from a dumbass.
Again:
READ THE FVCKING COURT DOCUMENT.
It's all in there. Read it, and quit shooting your e-mouth off when you don't know what you're even talking about.
And I'm not saying I even agree with this decision. Nowhere have I said that.

I did say that I feel it is likely the dude was a drug smuggler, though. That has nothing to do with whether I think they should keep his money or not.

i just read the pdf, and edited my post accordingly, the article ommitted a few things...however he still has no drug crimes, so i don't see how that's even admissable in trying to prove a drug connection

and you still made some completely baseless assumptions

They are not baseless. There is plenty of reason to believe that anyone who is driving around in a rental car they didn't rent, with over 100k money wrapped up in foil and in a cooler, who gets stopped and lies to the cop about prior arrests, lies about having a large sum of money in the car, lies to the cop about who rented the car, lies about where the money came from when they do find it....there is plenty of reason to believe that individual is running drugs.
I'm not saying it's enough to convict him of such, but it is certainly enough reason to believe that whether he can be convicted or not he is in fact a drug runner.

so it's not enough to convict him, but it's enough to call him one?

No, it's not. In fact, without a conviction, it's libel.

He's innocent unless proven guilty, and ceasing his money is a travesty.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
1. it's none of his ****** business how much money he had...besides, would you tell a cop you had 124K? what's to stop him from taking it and sending you on your way?READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
2. i guess you missed the part about him having no significant criminal history, huh? :rolleyes; READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
3. where does it say he lied to the cop about who rented the car for him? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
4. for that matter, where does it say he lied about the source of the money? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT
5. a good percentage of currency in circulation has drug residue on it, not to mention it's a ****** rental car that god knows how many people had driven previously
6. now this is just stupid

and wtf was he guilty of, exactly? READ THE COURT DOCUMENT

you're a ****** communist

I'm far from a communist, but you evidently aren't very far from a dumbass.
Again:
READ THE FVCKING COURT DOCUMENT.
It's all in there. Read it, and quit shooting your e-mouth off when you don't know what you're even talking about.
And I'm not saying I even agree with this decision. Nowhere have I said that.

I did say that I feel it is likely the dude was a drug smuggler, though. That has nothing to do with whether I think they should keep his money or not.

i just read the pdf, and edited my post accordingly, the article ommitted a few things...however he still has no drug crimes, so i don't see how that's even admissable in trying to prove a drug connection

and you still made some completely baseless assumptions

They are not baseless. There is plenty of reason to believe that anyone who is driving around in a rental car they didn't rent, with over 100k money wrapped up in foil and in a cooler, who gets stopped and lies to the cop about prior arrests, lies about having a large sum of money in the car, lies to the cop about who rented the car, lies about where the money came from when they do find it....there is plenty of reason to believe that individual is running drugs.
I'm not saying it's enough to convict him of such, but it is certainly enough reason to believe that whether he can be convicted or not he is in fact a drug runner.

so it's not enough to convict him, but it's enough to call him one?

Absolutely. It's enough to at least doubt his story, at minimum.
Do you doubt OJ Simpson is guilty of murder? Remember, he was found not guilty.
No difference, it's just the other way around for this guy.

OJ is innocent in the eyes of the law and God.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Nebor, you might want to read the court document, too.

And I hope you're joking about OJ.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Nebor, you might want to read the court document, too.

And I hope you're joking about OJ.

I don't have to read the court document. If he's not convicted of a crime, they should give the man his money back. I'm a huge proponent of the war on drugs, but we can't squash peoples rights to fight it.

And OJ was not found guilty. That means he's innocent. That's good enough for me. I'd have a beer with him. :thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Having >$10,000 on your person has been subject to confiscation since the Mid-80's. Thanks to the War on Drugs.

Not many people know about that Law.

If he had $9,999 dollars most likely would be returned to him.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
Having >$10,000 on your person has been subject to confiscation since the Mid-80's. Thanks to the War on Drugs.

Not many people know about that Law.

If he had $9,999 dollars most likely would be returned to him.

Negative. The cop would be down a dollar and our boy would be in jail.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
Having >$10,000 on your person has been subject to confiscation since the Mid-80's. Thanks to the War on Drugs.

Not many people know about that Law.

If he had $9,999 dollars most likely would be returned to him.

what you're thinking of is the amount you have to exceed in order to have to report the transaction to the IRS, i'm pretty sure

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
Having >$10,000 on your person has been subject to confiscation since the Mid-80's. Thanks to the War on Drugs.

Not many people know about that Law.

If he had $9,999 dollars most likely would be returned to him.

what you're thinking of is the amount you have to exceed in order to have to report the transaction to the IRS, i'm pretty sure

No, he's right. As part of the war on drugs it became legal for law enforcement (initially DEA) to seize large amounts of cash. (Because clearly it could only be used for buying drugs, right? :roll: )

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
Having >$10,000 on your person has been subject to confiscation since the Mid-80's. Thanks to the War on Drugs.

Not many people know about that Law.

If he had $9,999 dollars most likely would be returned to him.

what you're thinking of is the amount you have to exceed in order to have to report the transaction to the IRS, i'm pretty sure

No, he's right. As part of the war on drugs it became legal for law enforcement (initially DEA) to seize large amounts of cash. (Because clearly it could only be used for buying drugs, right? :roll: )

so i get stopped with 10K, being a natural citizen, with a valid drivers license, insurance, tag, no warrants, and no histroy of drug crimes, and no drugs and they can just take my cash and say i was going to buy drugs with it?

 

[LEDominator]

Although you have to wonder, 80% of the money has cocaine right? If that is the case, and the dog didn't lock onto another sample (which theoretically would also have minute traces) and locked on this guys, it would seem to me that at some point or another this bag of cash came into contact with more than minute traces of Cocaine. The fact that it also zeroed in on the rental car where the money was kept is also telling. The guy may not have been convicted, but it seems to me that obviously there was more to it than he said. I think they made a good ruling.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Banzai042
It's times like this that I wonder how some people manage to get themselves dressed in the morning with such ineffective minds.

They don't, they hire people with the money they 'confiscate' to do it for them.

 

[Eeezee]

Why would the drug sniffing dog pick up on the money in the cooler if he was truly innocent?

Why was he carrying a large sum of money? Why couldn't he put it in a bank account?

His entire story makes no sense. They pooled their life savings, yet they don't have a bank account? So they just happened to have $125,000 in cash sitting in a few jars and under their beds? When one makes a life savings, doesn't it make sense to have it in a bank account where it can accrue interest or at least be federally insured? It really takes almost nothing to create at least a checking account where the money can be stored. And then once such an account was made, he wouldn't have to carry around $125,000 in cash over state lines, he could just leave it in the bank and remove it once he reached his destination.

No, the entire story does not make any sense. I can't think of a single reason to carry around $125,000 hidden in a cooler while you drive a rented car that's not in your name across state lines. Could this guy really not get a credit card? Do you know how easy it is to get a credit card? Even if you have horrible credit, you can still have a credit card.

Most importantly, why did the dog detect drug residue in the cooler? These dogs are highly-trained animals, and they are usually very accurate.

None of it adds up. This guy shouldn't have lied to the cops, he probably would have gotten off with just a speeding ticket.

I'm sorry OP, but you really only bolded the worst parts of the article when a lot of it actually demonstrates that the cops probably made the right choice. The money is plausible evidence and is probably in the process of being scanned for drug residue or something.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
Having >$10,000 on your person has been subject to confiscation since the Mid-80's. Thanks to the War on Drugs.

Not many people know about that Law.

If he had $9,999 dollars most likely would be returned to him.

what you're thinking of is the amount you have to exceed in order to have to report the transaction to the IRS, i'm pretty sure

No, he's right. As part of the war on drugs it became legal for law enforcement (initially DEA) to seize large amounts of cash. (Because clearly it could only be used for buying drugs, right? :roll: )

so i get stopped with 10K, being a natural citizen, with a valid drivers license, insurance, tag, no warrants, and no histroy of drug crimes, and no drugs and they can just take my cash and say i was going to buy drugs with it?

Statistically speaking, if you're carrying around $10k in untracable bills, you're probably going to buy drugs with it. $10k cash purchases are one of the rarest purchases imaginable.

All they need is plausible cause. If you're acting suspicious and a drug sniffing dog starts barking at your cooler, your ridiculously large sum of money is probably going to be confiscated.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Why would the drug sniffing dog pick up on the money in the cooler if he was truly innocent?

Why was he carrying a large sum of money? Why couldn't he put it in a bank account?

His entire story makes no sense. They pooled their life savings, yet they don't have a bank account? So they just happened to have $125,000 in cash sitting in a few jars and under their beds? When one makes a life savings, doesn't it make sense to have it in a bank account where it can accrue interest or at least be federally insured? It really takes almost nothing to create at least a checking account where the money can be stored. And then once such an account was made, he wouldn't have to carry around $125,000 in cash over state lines, he could just leave it in the bank and remove it once he reached his destination.

No, the entire story does not make any sense. I can't think of a single reason to carry around $125,000 hidden in a cooler while you drive a rented car that's not in your name across state lines. Could this guy really not get a credit card? Do you know how easy it is to get a credit card? Even if you have horrible credit, you can still have a credit card.

Most importantly, why did the dog detect drug residue in the cooler? These dogs are highly-trained animals, and they are usually very accurate.

None of it adds up. This guy shouldn't have lied to the cops, he probably would have gotten off with just a speeding ticket.

I'm sorry OP, but you really only bolded the worst parts of the article when a lot of it actually demonstrates that the cops probably made the right choice. The money is plausible evidence and is probably in the process of being scanned for drug residue or something.

I'm actually not surprised the dog hit on the money. Do you realize how much money goes through drug dealers/drug transactions in this country? With that amount of cash, its no wonder the dog hit on it. The money was more than likely tainted before the guy even took custody of it.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
Land of the free my ass.

And becoming less and less "free" every year.

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: quakefiend420

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
Having >$10,000 on your person has been subject to confiscation since the Mid-80's. Thanks to the War on Drugs.

Not many people know about that Law.

If he had $9,999 dollars most likely would be returned to him.

what you're thinking of is the amount you have to exceed in order to have to report the transaction to the IRS, i'm pretty sure

No, he's right. As part of the war on drugs it became legal for law enforcement (initially DEA) to seize large amounts of cash. (Because clearly it could only be used for buying drugs, right? :roll: )

so i get stopped with 10K, being a natural citizen, with a valid drivers license, insurance, tag, no warrants, and no histroy of drug crimes, and no drugs and they can just take my cash and say i was going to buy drugs with it?

Statistically speaking, if you're carrying around $10k in untracable bills, you're probably going to buy drugs with it. $10k cash purchases are one of the rarest purchases imaginable.

All they need is plausible cause. If you're acting suspicious and a drug sniffing dog starts barking at your cooler, your ridiculously large sum of money is probably going to be confiscated.

i pay cash for everything...

 

[CrazyShiz]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Why would the drug sniffing dog pick up on the money in the cooler if he was truly innocent?

Why was he carrying a large sum of money? Why couldn't he put it in a bank account?

His entire story makes no sense. They pooled their life savings, yet they don't have a bank account? So they just happened to have $125,000 in cash sitting in a few jars and under their beds? When one makes a life savings, doesn't it make sense to have it in a bank account where it can accrue interest or at least be federally insured? It really takes almost nothing to create at least a checking account where the money can be stored. And then once such an account was made, he wouldn't have to carry around $125,000 in cash over state lines, he could just leave it in the bank and remove it once he reached his destination.

No, the entire story does not make any sense. I can't think of a single reason to carry around $125,000 hidden in a cooler while you drive a rented car that's not in your name across state lines. Could this guy really not get a credit card? Do you know how easy it is to get a credit card? Even if you have horrible credit, you can still have a credit card.

Most importantly, why did the dog detect drug residue in the cooler? These dogs are highly-trained animals, and they are usually very accurate.

None of it adds up. This guy shouldn't have lied to the cops, he probably would have gotten off with just a speeding ticket.

I'm sorry OP, but you really only bolded the worst parts of the article when a lot of it actually demonstrates that the cops probably made the right choice. The money is plausible evidence and is probably in the process of being scanned for drug residue or something.

Mr. Eeezee, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Just because YOU can't think of any reasons to have that much cash does NOT equal probable cause.

Thank you, come again.