Mother and Teen Daughter Caught Smuggling Money!

[Coito ergo sum]

Cormac, same here in the states.

It is required that you carry a drivers license in your car while driving. That's it.

[Sean Hayden]

Very true. But, they never claimed otherwise -- they're always a law and order bunch. That's why conservatives tend to support forfeiture laws like this and other "law and order stuff," and they've tended to be disdainful of stuff like taking the 5th and Miranda rights and all that.

Yep, an unhealthy attitude that may require reeducation.

I like your take on this issue Coito. Even if only because it reveals some strange views e.g. "they deserve everything they get". I think there is something to protecting people that don't respond to all authority in the acceptable way.

[pErvinalia]

Cormac, same here in the states.

It is required that you carry a drivers license in your car while driving. That's it.

That's what I was talking about. Can the coppers ask you to present your drivers license? And if so, how is this any different to asking you whether you have one on you or not?

[Warren Dew]

Cormac, same here in the states.

It is required that you carry a drivers license in your car while driving. That's it.

That's what I was talking about. Can the coppers ask you to present your drivers license?

No. Not without reasonable suspicion that you were violating the law.

[pErvinalia]

What about your registration papers? (I only ask this based on movie depictions of the US. There's no such thing as "registration papers" here. We have a registration sticker on our windscreens).

[pErvinalia]

Cormac, same here in the states.

It is required that you carry a drivers license in your car while driving. That's it.

That's what I was talking about. Can the coppers ask you to present your drivers license?

No. Not without reasonable suspicion that you were violating the law.

And even then, how is that different to asking you to state whether you are carrying it or not?

[Coito ergo sum]

Cormac, same here in the states.

It is required that you carry a drivers license in your car while driving. That's it.

That's what I was talking about. Can the coppers ask you to present your drivers license? And if so, how is this any different to asking you whether you have one on you or not?

It's not the asking that's the problem. Cops can approach you and ask you whatever they like. However, they cannot arbitrarily ask you for your drivers license -- they have to have reasonable suspicion that YOU are up to something illegal or done something illegal. If a cop comes up to me on the street and says "can I see your license please?" I can refuse. I can't refuse to disclose the cash in the scenario in the OP.

I also only have to carry a drivers license if I'm driving. And, cops have to have a reason to pull me over apart from verifying that I have a drivers license. That too is different from the OP scenario. they're not asking her questions because she's under suspicion. They're asking everyone questions to see who doesn't want to answer or who doesn't give accurate answers. Bollocks, IMO.

[Coito ergo sum]

What about your registration papers? (I only ask this based on movie depictions of the US. There's no such thing as "registration papers" here. We have a registration sticker on our windscreens).

Cops generally don't ask for your registration card anymore, because they can tell by the license plate if you're registered. It's been a long time since a cop actually asked me for my insurance card either, because he can tell from the license plate who my insurer is.

But, a cop can ask me whatever he likes, but he is only entitled to an answer if he has pulled me over for suspicion of a driving offense, and then I only have to provide my drivers license, auto registration and insurance card. That's it. Otherwise, I can sit silently.

[pErvinalia]

Cormac, same here in the states.

It is required that you carry a drivers license in your car while driving. That's it.

That's what I was talking about. Can the coppers ask you to present your drivers license? And if so, how is this any different to asking you whether you have one on you or not?

It's not the asking that's the problem. Cops can approach you and ask you whatever they like. However, they cannot arbitrarily ask you for your drivers license -- they have to have reasonable suspicion that YOU are up to something illegal or done something illegal. If a cop comes up to me on the street and says "can I see your license please?" I can refuse. I can't refuse to disclose the cash in the scenario in the OP.

I also only have to carry a drivers license if I'm driving.

As I said, that is what I am talking/asking about. The latter part of the paragraph before this is irrelevant to my point.

And, cops have to have a reason to pull me over apart from verifying that I have a drivers license.

Ok, they can pull you over for not indicating, but there's no requirement on them to ask for your license. Only if they are going to give you a ticket, I presume. So the point remains that they can ask you for your license (under certain circumstances). How is that different to requiring someone to prove that they don't have cash stuffed in their undies at the airport?

That too is different from the OP scenario. they're not asking her questions because she's under suspicion. They're asking everyone questions to see who doesn't want to answer or who doesn't give accurate answers. Bollocks, IMO.

Either way, I still don't see how that is necessarily incriminating oneself. All the answer to the question proves is that you have a chunk of cash on you. Whether that cash was legally or illegally gained is a separate investigation.

And in a general sense, I just don't see the difference between incriminating oneself by answering a question, and incriminating oneself by failing to hand over a document.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, cops have to have a reason to pull me over apart from verifying that I have a drivers license.

Ok, they can pull you over for not indicating, but there's no requirement on them to ask for your license. Only if they are going to give you a ticket, I presume. So the point remains that they can ask you for your license (under certain circumstances). How is that different to requiring someone to prove that they don't have cash stuffed in their undies at the airport?

sigh.... providing identification is not requiring someone to disclose anything besides their identity.

And, there is a difference between needing reasonable cause to require something of someone, and being permitted to arbitrarily dragnet the population and require everyone to disclose something. Savvy?

That too is different from the OP scenario. they're not asking her questions because she's under suspicion. They're asking everyone questions to see who doesn't want to answer or who doesn't give accurate answers. Bollocks, IMO.

Either way, I still don't see how that is necessarily incriminating oneself.

Incrimination is not the only manner in which it is improper. Requiring me to disclose that I have a legal item on me, and why, is itself an improper requirement because I am not under suspicion. They should, like in all other circumstances, need reasonable suspicion before requiring me to do that.

All the answer to the question proves is that you have a chunk of cash on you. Whether that cash was legally or illegally gained is a separate investigation.

And, just like what is in my pockets is none of the cops' damn business, unless he has reasonable suspicion that I'm doing something wrong, it's none of their damn business what money I have on me.

And in a general sense, I just don't see the difference between incriminating oneself by answering a question, and incriminating oneself by failing to hand over a document.

One does not incriminate oneself by failing to hand over a document.

Further, self-incrimination is by definition a matter of making verbal or written statements. Failing to talk is not self-incrimination. The right is against testifying against oneself.

Moreover -- the right that we all have is not MERELY -- not just -- against self-incrimination. It's about REMAINING SILENT. If we have the right to remain silent, then we ought not have to write down stuff or say stuff in response to law enforcement inquiry.

[pErvinalia]

And, cops have to have a reason to pull me over apart from verifying that I have a drivers license.

Ok, they can pull you over for not indicating, but there's no requirement on them to ask for your license. Only if they are going to give you a ticket, I presume. So the point remains that they can ask you for your license (under certain circumstances). How is that different to requiring someone to prove that they don't have cash stuffed in their undies at the airport?

sigh.... providing identification is not requiring someone to disclose anything besides their identity.

Of course it is. If you don't have your identification on you, it is an offence. Therefore you are incriminating yourself by complying with the copper's request.

And, there is a difference between needing reasonable cause to require something of someone, and being permitted to arbitrarily dragnet the population and require everyone to disclose something. Savvy?

So what if there is a difference? There is a difference in a wide variety of scenarios where you could incriminate yourself by answering questions from legal authorities. The question is, is the difference enough to defend a different interpretation of "incriminating oneself"?

That too is different from the OP scenario. they're not asking her questions because she's under suspicion. They're asking everyone questions to see who doesn't want to answer or who doesn't give accurate answers. Bollocks, IMO.

Either way, I still don't see how that is necessarily incriminating oneself.

Incrimination is not the only manner in which it is improper. Requiring me to disclose that I have a legal item on me, and why, is itself an improper requirement because I am not under suspicion. They should, like in all other circumstances, need reasonable suspicion before requiring me to do that.

So now you are shifting the goalposts? The reason why they ask you to disclose it is as has been said to you by a number of people in this thread so far. The chances of illegal activity being involved in carrying large sums of cash abroad is arguably high enough to warrant asking people to prove that they don't have bundles of undocumented cash on them.

All the answer to the question proves is that you have a chunk of cash on you. Whether that cash was legally or illegally gained is a separate investigation.

And, just like what is in my pockets is none of the cops' damn business, unless he has reasonable suspicion that I'm doing something wrong, it's none of their damn business what money I have on me.

As explained by a number of people already, it is their business. Societies are about a balance between individual rights and social responsibility. If there is a reasonable case to be made that society can be degraded by an action, then some of the individual's rights have to come second in that instance. That's how societies work.

And in a general sense, I just don't see the difference between incriminating oneself by answering a question, and incriminating oneself by failing to hand over a document.

One does not incriminate oneself by failing to hand over a document.

Of course they do. If they are required to carry it, and they don't hand it over, they can be fined for not carrying it.

Further, self-incrimination is by definition a matter of making verbal or written statements. Failing to talk is not self-incrimination. The right is against testifying against oneself.

Yes I know that, but I'm asking what is the philosophical difference between the two? In both cases you are nicked if you act one way over the other way.

Moreover -- the right that we all have is not MERELY -- not just -- against self-incrimination. It's about REMAINING SILENT. If we have the right to remain silent, then we ought not have to write down stuff or say stuff in response to law enforcement inquiry.

So what about court orders? Why don't you have the right to remain silent in a court (and I'm not just talking about as a defendant. I'm thinking more as a subpoenaed witness)?

[Cormac]

Cormac, same here in the states.

It is required that you carry a drivers license in your car while driving. That's it.

That's what I was talking about. Can the coppers ask you to present your drivers license? And if so, how is this any different to asking you whether you have one on you or not?

In Ireland, even in the case of driving, they can't ask, unless you're suspected of having committed an offence.

Well, they can ask, but you're under no obligation to comply.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, cops have to have a reason to pull me over apart from verifying that I have a drivers license.

Ok, they can pull you over for not indicating, but there's no requirement on them to ask for your license. Only if they are going to give you a ticket, I presume. So the point remains that they can ask you for your license (under certain circumstances). How is that different to requiring someone to prove that they don't have cash stuffed in their undies at the airport?

sigh.... providing identification is not requiring someone to disclose anything besides their identity.

Of course it is. If you don't have your identification on you, it is an offence. Therefore you are incriminating yourself by complying with the copper's request.

No. Yes, but it's an offense because driving without a license is an offense. Driving with money is not an offense, and neither is flying with money. These are apples and oranges.

And, there is a difference between needing reasonable cause to require something of someone, and being permitted to arbitrarily dragnet the population and require everyone to disclose something. Savvy?

So what if there is a difference? There is a difference in a wide variety of scenarios where you could incriminate yourself by answering questions from legal authorities. The question is, is the difference enough to defend a different interpretation of "incriminating oneself"?

I just explained why there is a difference, and why that difference is important. A cop pulls you over not to indiscriminately check licenses, and a checkpoint where every driver is checked for drivers licenses would be unlawful. That's what they're doing with the money disclosure thing -- it's a check point where everyone is asked how much money they have on them, even when there is no suspicion at all.

That too is different from the OP scenario. they're not asking her questions because she's under suspicion. They're asking everyone questions to see who doesn't want to answer or who doesn't give accurate answers. Bollocks, IMO.

Either way, I still don't see how that is necessarily incriminating oneself.

Incrimination is not the only manner in which it is improper. Requiring me to disclose that I have a legal item on me, and why, is itself an improper requirement because I am not under suspicion. They should, like in all other circumstances, need reasonable suspicion before requiring me to do that.

So now you are shifting the goalposts? The reason why they ask you to disclose it is as has been said to you by a number of people in this thread so far. The chances of illegal activity being involved in carrying large sums of cash abroad is arguably high enough to warrant asking people to prove that they don't have bundles of undocumented cash on them.

Another logical fallacy you don't understand.

No, I haven't shifted the goal posts. I've identified more than one reason that these questions ought to be found to be unlawful or unconstitutional. You're the one solely focusing on self-incrimination.

We don't shift the burden of proof to the defendant here -- if the cash is ill-gotten, it's up to the government to prove it. Well, at least we shouldn't shift the burden of proof -- of course, that's a big problem with forfeiture actions. They do shift the burden of proof.

Cash is generally not documented. Who has "documentation" authenticating their cash? That's the whole point of cash. It's a fungible demand note.

All the answer to the question proves is that you have a chunk of cash on you. Whether that cash was legally or illegally gained is a separate investigation.

And, just like what is in my pockets is none of the cops' damn business, unless he has reasonable suspicion that I'm doing something wrong, it's none of their damn business what money I have on me.

As explained by a number of people already, it is their business. Societies are about a balance between individual rights and social responsibility. If there is a reasonable case to be made that society can be degraded by an action, then some of the individual's rights have to come second in that instance. That's how societies work.

That's one view of it. The same view can be used to justify any ridiculous rule the government imposes. But, thanks for stating the obvious, that societies are based on a balance between individual rights and social responsibility. The idea is that in a society where the burden of proof rests on the State in criminal matters, in a society where people have the right to remain silent, where they have a right to not testify against themselves, where they have no obligation to participate in the government's criminal investigations, where cash is legal, and where flying with cash is legal, it is offensive to that balance that the state would require you to disclose how much money you have on you and then seize it if you don't comply and prosecute you for a felony.

And in a general sense, I just don't see the difference between incriminating oneself by answering a question, and incriminating oneself by failing to hand over a document.

One does not incriminate oneself by failing to hand over a document.

Of course they do. If they are required to carry it, and they don't hand it over, they can be fined for not carrying it.

Maybe you are missing the point that we're talking about testimonial self-incrimination, written or verbal words that the accused utters or writes.

Further, self-incrimination is by definition a matter of making verbal or written statements. Failing to talk is not self-incrimination. The right is against testifying against oneself.

Yes I know that, but I'm asking what is the philosophical difference between the two? In both cases you are nicked if you act one way over the other way.

I've explained the difference. Self-incrimination applies to verbal or written utterances. IT doesn't apply to actions or forensics. Its' the difference between a cop custodially interrogating you and a cop drawing your blood to test for DUI. The former can involve self-incrimination, the latter does not, for obvious reasons.

Moreover -- the right that we all have is not MERELY -- not just -- against self-incrimination. It's about REMAINING SILENT. If we have the right to remain silent, then we ought not have to write down stuff or say stuff in response to law enforcement inquiry.

So what about court orders? Why don't you have the right to remain silent in a court (and I'm not just talking about as a defendant. I'm thinking more as a subpoenaed witness)?

You do have the right to remain silent in court, as a criminal defendant or suspect. That's what we're talking about.

A subpoenaed witness does have the right to remain silent if they're going to say something that may incriminate them. See Lois Lerner of the IRS' video above. You don't have the right to remain silent in response to a subpoena in general, and subpoenas are issued on behalf of courts, not cops or investigative or law enforcement agencies.

[JimC]

CES, you seem to be getting irate over some general "wrong", that being law enforcement sticking their noses into your business, in terms of querying you about large sums of money. If this were while just walking down the street, or even getting on a plane between 2 states in the same country, I'd agree with you that it's none of their business (unless they have other evidence suggesting you have got the money through criminal means)

But the OP was all about declaring money to customs officials when you cross international borders. That is a very specific circumstance, and is fairly mild - I gather that you can simply declare "I've got $50,000 in crisp 100 dollar bills, guys", and everything's hunky dory.

In this narrow sense, I find this regulation perfectly acceptable...

[pErvinalia]

And, cops have to have a reason to pull me over apart from verifying that I have a drivers license.

Ok, they can pull you over for not indicating, but there's no requirement on them to ask for your license. Only if they are going to give you a ticket, I presume. So the point remains that they can ask you for your license (under certain circumstances). How is that different to requiring someone to prove that they don't have cash stuffed in their undies at the airport?

sigh.... providing identification is not requiring someone to disclose anything besides their identity.

Of course it is. If you don't have your identification on you, it is an offence. Therefore you are incriminating yourself by complying with the copper's request.

No. Yes, but it's an offense because driving without a license is an offense.

So? You are still incriminating yourself by complying with his request. Why is it ok to incriminate yourself in this case, but not in other cases?

That too is different from the OP scenario. they're not asking her questions because she's under suspicion. They're asking everyone questions to see who doesn't want to answer or who doesn't give accurate answers. Bollocks, IMO.

Either way, I still don't see how that is necessarily incriminating oneself.

Incrimination is not the only manner in which it is improper. Requiring me to disclose that I have a legal item on me, and why, is itself an improper requirement because I am not under suspicion. They should, like in all other circumstances, need reasonable suspicion before requiring me to do that.

So now you are shifting the goalposts? The reason why they ask you to disclose it is as has been said to you by a number of people in this thread so far. The chances of illegal activity being involved in carrying large sums of cash abroad is arguably high enough to warrant asking people to prove that they don't have bundles of undocumented cash on them.

Another logical fallacy you don't understand.

Lol. Says the guy who can't understand how he clearly strawmanned my argument earlier.

No, I haven't shifted the goal posts. I've identified more than one reason that these questions ought to be found to be unlawful or unconstitutional.

So? We were talking about the issue of self-incrimination. That's what my post was about that you were responding too. You didn't respond to that point. Instead you changed focus to some other point. I.e. shifted the goalposts.

You're the one solely focusing on self-incrimination.

I'm not solely focussing on it; something you would realise if you'd read the thread. But regardless, that was the point I was interested in pursuing with you. A point that you were happy to discuss with me until you couldn't answer my point any more.

We don't shift the burden of proof to the defendant here -- if the cash is ill-gotten, it's up to the government to prove it.

How is that relevant to the process of declaring cash when leaving the country?

Cash is generally not documented. Who has "documentation" authenticating their cash? That's the whole point of cash. It's a fungible demand note.

Large sums can almost always be documented in some way. Tax returns, bank records, employment records, etc. Can you not understand the concept that carrying large sums of cash across borders is often associated with illegal activities?

All the answer to the question proves is that you have a chunk of cash on you. Whether that cash was legally or illegally gained is a separate investigation.

And, just like what is in my pockets is none of the cops' damn business, unless he has reasonable suspicion that I'm doing something wrong, it's none of their damn business what money I have on me.

As explained by a number of people already, it is their business. Societies are about a balance between individual rights and social responsibility. If there is a reasonable case to be made that society can be degraded by an action, then some of the individual's rights have to come second in that instance. That's how societies work.

That's one view of it. The same view can be used to justify any ridiculous rule the government imposes. But, thanks for stating the obvious, that societies are based on a balance between individual rights and social responsibility. The idea is that in a society where the burden of proof rests on the State in criminal matters, in a society where people have the right to remain silent, where they have a right to not testify against themselves, where they have no obligation to participate in the government's criminal investigations, where cash is legal, and where flying with cash is legal, it is offensive to that balance that the state would require you to disclose how much money you have on you and then seize it if you don't comply and prosecute you for a felony.

I agree that the seizing part is wrong. I'd be interested to hear their justification for that. Surely they must have one?

But regarding the balance of individual rights vs societal concerns, I have no problem with the state getting you to declare how much cash you are carrying abroad, as the benefits in crime reduction would arguably outweigh the exceedingly mild inconvenience of declaring. And again, I don't agree it is self-incriminatory to state that you have cash on you. I could either rob a bank, or make a withdrawal, and then go to the airport to board a plane and declare my personal cash. That declaration says absolutely nothing about where the cash came from. That's a separate line of investigation.

And in a general sense, I just don't see the difference between incriminating oneself by answering a question, and incriminating oneself by failing to hand over a document.

One does not incriminate oneself by failing to hand over a document.

Of course they do. If they are required to carry it, and they don't hand it over, they can be fined for not carrying it.

Maybe you are missing the point that we're talking about testimonial self-incrimination, written or verbal words that the accused utters or writes.

I'm talking about the philosophical, i.e. moral, difference between the two situations. How many times do I need to make this point? If in both cases I incriminate myself, then what exactly is the non-self-incrimination law supposed to be protecting me against?

Further, self-incrimination is by definition a matter of making verbal or written statements. Failing to talk is not self-incrimination. The right is against testifying against oneself.

Yes I know that, but I'm asking what is the philosophical difference between the two? In both cases you are nicked if you act one way over the other way.

I've explained the difference. Self-incrimination applies to verbal or written utterances. IT doesn't apply to actions or forensics. Its' the difference between a cop custodially interrogating you and a cop drawing your blood to test for DUI. The former can involve self-incrimination, the latter does not, for obvious reasons.

I'm still not seeing it. What's the philosophical difference between verbally incriminating yourself, versus physically doing it (by handing over, or not, a physical document)?

Moreover -- the right that we all have is not MERELY -- not just -- against self-incrimination. It's about REMAINING SILENT. If we have the right to remain silent, then we ought not have to write down stuff or say stuff in response to law enforcement inquiry.

So what about court orders? Why don't you have the right to remain silent in a court (and I'm not just talking about as a defendant. I'm thinking more as a subpoenaed witness)?

You do have the right to remain silent in court, as a criminal defendant or suspect. That's what we're talking about.

A subpoenaed witness does have the right to remain silent if they're going to say something that may incriminate them. See Lois Lerner of the IRS' video above. You don't have the right to remain silent in response to a subpoena in general, and subpoenas are issued on behalf of courts, not cops or investigative or law enforcement agencies.

Yeah, but you just emphasised the right to remain silent in your above reply to me. So why did you emphasise in separation from the self-incrimination aspect, only to reconnect the two just now?