Quote:
|
Originally Posted by opus123
Lastly, they could test the bills for drug contamination. Many drug labs get drugs on the bills if there is any wind but it depends on the drugs involved and how clean the people are. But yes, it is good that the ACLU is involved, just in case he is a legal citizen.
|
Even if they were to find drug contamination on ANY of the bills what does that really prove? How much of the money that has drug contamination on it had said contamination put there in the hands of the last person who held it? How would we possibly know the answer to that? Money does change hands LOTS of time between the time that it's printed, and the time that it's ultimately destroyed.
Personally I don't support the government seizing ANY property from an individual without first having to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime, AND having to prove that each individual asset being seized was either used in the commission/furtherence of said crime, or was the proceeds of a crime. (for which the person the item being seized has been convicted) It puts the burden of proof where it should be, with the government, not the individual (especially since the individual has limited resources compared to the government's), and it should make it significantly more difficult for the government to seize assets.