UlrichI have emergency cash stowed away in my office in case my wife kicks me out and I have to Motel 6 it.
If you read emergency preparedness recommendations, most suggest having enough of everything (including cash) to get by for at least three days. For a family of four, that could amount to a fair amount of money, especially if you are faced with an evacuation situation where your cache at home isn't going to work out.
I could see someone keeping a stash of cash at work (assuming they have a place they can secure it) in case they aren't going to be able to hook up with their family right away in an emergency.
A good many folks have cash stowed in various places around their homes just so they have it available if they need cash and the bank isn't an option.
And there's a fellow I once knew who routinely had a grand in his wallet.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
When I worked for Amtrak, I never saw an Amtrak Police Officer unduly harrass a passenger. Officers with dogs for drug or explosives detection were never intrusive. However, it appears that DEA officers are an entirely different story, and need to be reined in.
This whole issue involves serious Constitutional concerns regarding illegal search and seizure, invasions of privacy, etc. And since when is it up to the accused to prove his innocence? I thought it was up to his accusers to prove his guilt.
Whether or not you would personally carry a "large" (whatever that is) amount of cash, is irrelevant. The relevant point is that there is nothing inherently illegal about doing so, and the individual's reasons for doing so are nobody else's business unless there is OTHER probable cause for believing the cash has something to do with illegal activity. The exisence of the cash, in itself, is not proof of anything.
Tom
You're right ACY, maybe dead right. There's nothing illegal about carrying large amounts of cash or in acting in any manmer that might otherwise arouse suspicion. Just as there's nothing illegal about walking through a dangerous neighbourhood at 2:00 am. It's really nobody's business. But if I insist on walking through a dangerous neighbourhood at night and I'm attacked does it really matter if I was in the right when my throat was slit for 50 bucks? Personally I'd never want to be dead right like that. In the same way we need to anticipate and prepare. Our law enforcement people are imperfect, as are our laws and enforcement methods. In the long term we can change things through our political process. But in the here and now we need to be smart and practical instead of possibly dead right.
Ulrich ---
Yes, it would be foolish to carry money around in a very unsecured area where you might fall prey to a criminal.
But can you extend this logic to say you would be foolish to carry money around in a public area where you might fall prey to a law enforcement officer?
Not according to what they taught me in 5th grade.
Someone else here (not me) had suggested that alot of cash on hand might provoke suspicion among some in law enforcement. It's never happened to me, but I can appreciate that having alot of unexplained cash on my person might look suspicious to an overzealous cop who might then detain me or flag me for a more rigorous inspection. Is that right or even fair? Not at all.. but it is what it is, and unless one enjoys standing on principle one doesn't tempt fate. None of us has any control over external events... heck, I don't even have control over what goes on in my own home alot of the time. All we really can do, from a realistic and practical standpoint, is to acknowledge reality and to stack the odds in our favor by taking actions that would minimize an unpleasant experience with imperfect people that include some in law enforcement. I do that by making sure I don't carry alot of cash on me, by making sure I'm clean and presentable, by making sure that I have more than enough documentation on me at all times to quel suspicion. Of course, none of that is foolproof.. I could still be thrown in jail or interogated. All I'm saying is that we can't change the world, we can only stack the deck in our favor by how we respond and by how we conduct ourselves.
zardoz http://www.businessinsider.com/when-simply-taking-the-train-is-deemed-suspicious-behavior-2015-5 Sure is a good thing that we live in the "land of the free".
http://www.businessinsider.com/when-simply-taking-the-train-is-deemed-suspicious-behavior-2015-5
Sure is a good thing that we live in the "land of the free".
Two observations:
1. The 'war on drugs' has been an almost total failure.
2. The police abuse described in the article is similar though milder to the harassment young minority males experience almost every day.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm zardoz http://www.businessinsider.com/when-simply-taking-the-train-is-deemed-suspicious-behavior-2015-5 Sure is a good thing that we live in the "land of the free". Two observations: 1. The 'war on drugs' has been an almost total failure. 2. The police abuse described in the article is similar though milder to the harassment young minority males experience almost every day.
I agree wholly with both points.
I couldn't believe it when suspending constitutional rights just because of suspicion of drugs was proposed, and besides innocent people being victimized, it has been used as an excuse after abuses have occurred ("We thought he was on drugs"). I think a lot of our stupid laws have been passed because politicians tend to fall all over themselves trying to prove that "I'm tougher on crime than you are."
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Ya know Folks, this thread has gone so political if I didn't know better,I could swear it was started by Trackrat 888 aka Ohio River Troll.
Not complaining; just an observation.
Norm
Not political..simply an interesting exercise in avoiding problems by accepting reality and only attempting to control what's actually within our control.
Norm48327Ya know Folks, this thread has gone so political if I didn't know better,I could swear it was started by Trackrat 888 aka Ohio River Troll.
It's been refreshing to not have him posting of late, for whatever reason.
schlimm Norm48327 Ya know Folks, this thread has gone so political if I didn't know better,I could swear it was started by Trackrat 888 aka Ohio River Troll. It's been refreshing to not have him posting of late, for whatever reason.
Norm48327 Ya know Folks, this thread has gone so political if I didn't know better,I could swear it was started by Trackrat 888 aka Ohio River Troll.
Agree 100%.
We'd damn well better be willing to "get political" about law enforcement, including on Amtrak and this forum, before we've abdicated our Fourth Amendment rights.
Carrying too much cash constitutes "probable cause"? The cops had better get that codified if they expect the rest of us to take it seriously (instead of our concluding cops are out of control). It sure would have been news to the Founders -- and to everyone else who came before credit cards and ATMs.
Norm48327 schlimm Norm48327 Ya know Folks, this thread has gone so political if I didn't know better,I could swear it was started by Trackrat 888 aka Ohio River Troll. It's been refreshing to not have him posting of late, for whatever reason. Agree 100%.
I've never had any problem ignoring him when I want to. I'm not sure why you guys have any problem with his or anyone else's posts. It's just like a bad TV program, I change the channel, or turn it off and read a book.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
dakotafred We'd damn well better be willing to "get political" about law enforcement, including on Amtrak and this forum, before we've abdicated our Fourth Amendment rights. Carrying too much cash constitutes "probable cause"? The cops had better get that codified if they expect the rest of us to take it seriously (instead of our concluding cops are out of control). It sure would have been news to the Founders -- and to everyone else who came before credit cards and ATMs.
Unfortunately, the passage of any law by an elective political body ( at whatever level one chooses, is a patently political act, so politics are a major function of our real and functional daily lives.
Here is an intersting story from a google search: http://jalopnik.com/5913416/cops-can-confiscate-money-and-property-from-law-abiding-citizens
"Cops Can Confiscate Money And Property From Law Abiding Citizens"
"...How are they able to do this? Simple: large sums of money mean drug trafficking. Obviously. I mean who would carry $6,000 in a briefcase under the seat unless they were going to use it to buy a bunch of coke?.." [snipped]
Essentially, anyone could find themselves on a legitmate errand, and having large sums of cash in their custody; in the current legal environment, crossing paths with a government agent ( pick your own law enforcement entity) find themselves under suspicion pf some criminal activity. Subsequently, have the money in their custody, confiscated. The legal issues then become the responsibilitry, and costs, the burden of the injured pary to prove their innocence....
I don't agree that this conversation has turned into a political conversation, at least not in the sense of partisan politics. I'm not aware that either of the major parties has weighed in on the subject. Even the Libertarians are mostly silent. So no statement of opinion on this forum can be construed as support or opposition in respect to any party or viable candidate as far as I know.
Or am I missing something? I might make a political endorsement here, turning it into a political discussion, if I could figure out whom to support. Then would the moderators would have to shut it down?
Something of a conundrum.
You may support me as supreme ruler of the universe.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann You may support me as supreme ruler of the universe.
I would, but I don't need a co-ruler.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
samfp1943The legal issues then become the responsibilitry, and costs, the burden of the injured pary to prove their innocence....
And there lies the rub - constitutionally, you're innocent until proven guilty by the charging party. The problem with the whole forfeiture thing is that even once you're proven innocent, you're still "guilty" in the sense that the property that was seized is not returned to you...
zardoz http://www.businessinsider.com/when-simply-taking-the-train-is-deemed-suspicious-behavior-2015-5
I finally actually read the article.
While traveling on Amtrak from Chicago to Toronto the train was boarded by U.S. Customs agents
Do customs agents usually check outbound trips? Did the person mean Toronto to Chicago, or Canadian customs agents?
U.S. Customs Inspectors wouldn't care when he was leaving the United States. He was probably inspected by Canadian Customs at Sarnia, and their inspection procedure is not out of line.
Anyone actually consider the reason is because drug smugglers DO use Amtrak a lot. There's no TSA, no baggage searched before boarding. Its easy to move small amounts across country. For what its worth we were on a train where a drug mule was arrested in our car. He was a young single male traveling with a large bridal shower present...odd but the problem was that you could smell the weed! One of the passengers tipped off the crew. So when we pulled into Albuquerque the cops came in, questioned each passenger till they get to the perp, then they arrested him. The Amtrak personal told us the smuggling was a big problem, still is.
Have fun with your trains
In 1993 I drove from Toronto to Denver to take part in the Union Pacific Challenger fan trip... (a wonderful experience I might add, but I digress). On my way back through Canada Customs the agent asked me if I had bought anything while in the US that I wished to declare. I answered NO.. I hadn't bought a blessed thing other than food and gas the entire week I was there. The agent told me flat out that I was lying and told me to pull my car over to the inspection area. Four hours later... they had gone over my car with a fine toothed comb and found nothing. So much for innocent until proven guilty. But all in good stride.. I made it home a little later than anticipated but no harm done. Funny thing was that a month or so later I again made a trip to the US, and on my way back into Canada I had stupidly forgotten about a tenpack of beer I had left on the back seat of my car. The agent spotted the beer and laughed.. "can I have one of those?" he said.. I said sure.. take two. He took the beers and waved me through.. asked me nothing and wished me a nice day. It all depends on who you get.
The railroad police issue may be important, but it's not quite the same as the DEA's acting without probable cause, confiscating private property without proof of criminal activity, and denial of the basic right to the presumption of innocence.
There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to trespass on railroad property, so the railroad police seem to be, in general, on more solid legal ground.
Judging by the large amount of graffitti vandalism on railroad property I highly doubt that the railroad police are widely feared.
ACY The railroad police issue may be important, but it's not quite the same as the DEA's acting without probable cause, confiscating private property without proof of criminal activity, and denial of the basic right to the presumption of innocence. There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to trespass on railroad property, so the railroad police seem to be, in general, on more solid legal ground. Tom
I really know nothing about the behaviors of rail police, but private police don't get carte blanche with constitutional civil rights just because an alleged perp is on private property.
Not suggesting they do, or that they should. And neither should DEA.
Ulrich Someone else here (not me) had suggested that alot of cash on hand might provoke suspicion among some in law enforcement. It's never happened to me, but I can appreciate that having alot of unexplained cash on my person might look suspicious to an overzealous cop who might then detain me or flag me for a more rigorous inspection. Is that right or even fair? Not at all.. but it is what it is, and unless one enjoys standing on principle one doesn't tempt fate ...
Someone else here (not me) had suggested that alot of cash on hand might provoke suspicion among some in law enforcement. It's never happened to me, but I can appreciate that having alot of unexplained cash on my person might look suspicious to an overzealous cop who might then detain me or flag me for a more rigorous inspection. Is that right or even fair? Not at all.. but it is what it is, and unless one enjoys standing on principle one doesn't tempt fate ...
This and other posts by Ulrich on this thread are mature and common-sense. They describe the way a grownup negotiates an imperfect world ... knowing when to bend a principle for the sake of convenience.
But sometimes we must hold onto first principles. In the case of cash: Without a warrant, how does a cop get into your billfold or briefcase in the first place? I know we can be compelled -- except at the polls -- to show identification. But after that?
Is it enough if the cop spots a wad of bills in your wallet as you produce your driver's license? If so, that's an argument for carrying ID separately from your cash.
I would opine that in some areas/agencies, law enforcement is less law enforcement than it is a revenue source.
We've all heard of ticket quotas and how some municipalities rely on the income from traffic tickets for a part of their income. The folks who seize cash, vehicles, etc, often use the income from those seizures to buy the bells and whistles of their business.
And that right there is the problem. Take away that "benefit" and I'd imagine that such seizures would drop to near zero.
dakotafred Ulrich Someone else here (not me) had suggested that alot of cash on hand might provoke suspicion among some in law enforcement. It's never happened to me, but I can appreciate that having alot of unexplained cash on my person might look suspicious to an overzealous cop who might then detain me or flag me for a more rigorous inspection. Is that right or even fair? Not at all.. but it is what it is, and unless one enjoys standing on principle one doesn't tempt fate ... This and other posts by Ulrich on this thread are mature and common-sense. They describe the way a grownup negotiates an imperfect world ... knowing when to bend a principle for the sake of convenience. But sometimes we must hold onto first principles. In the case of cash: Without a warrant, how does a cop get into your billfold or briefcase in the first place? I know we can be compelled -- except at the polls -- to show identification. But after that? Is it enough if the cop spots a wad of bills in your wallet as you produce your driver's license? If so, that's an argument for carrying ID separately from your cash.
The Des Moines Register did an article a month or so back about state and local law enforcement using civil forfeiture in Iowa. IIRC, most of those seizures came about after someone was pulled over for a moving violation. The officer would ask if they could search the vehicle. The people thought since they had nothing to hide, it was OK to allow the officer to do the search.
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.