
How police used a traffic stop to take $91,800 from an innocent man - dankohn1
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/phillip-parhamovich-civil-forfeiture
======
tomohawk
The best way to avoid civil asset forfeiture in a traffic stop is to just not
ever answer any nosy questions the officer may ask.

When pulled over, never answer questions. You don't have to.

If the police officer asks you to remain once they've written the ticket, ask
if you're being detained or if you're free to go. Once they've written the
ticket, the stop is over, but aggressive police will try to fool people into
thinking the stop is not over. The longer they can keep you there, the more
pressure they can apply.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk)

~~~
valuearb
Not only should you not answer questions at a traffic stop, you should never
talk to the police under any circumstances.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

~~~
oh_teh_meows
This might be a contentious question, but how did it come to this in US
(likely not the only country suffering from problems with law enforcers), i.e
best course of action would be to not talk to the police? I imagine if I were
in say, Japan, I wouldn't have to worry about cops having it out for me
(especially if I'm innocent).

~~~
gozur88
The reason you don't talk to cops in the US or Canada (and some other
countries, I assume) is by law your refusal isn't taken as an indication of
guilt. So _you have nothing to gain_ and everything to lose.

Police interrogations aren't like normal conversations. Even if you're
innocent, if you misspeak it goes on the record the way you said it. Think
about how many times you've been in a normal conversation and had to go back
and clarify something you just said. Your friends are going to give you the
benefit of the doubt; a prosecutor can use that kind of thing to make it look
like you're changing your story.

There are countries in which your refusal to answer questions can be a factor
in determining your guilt at a later trial, so you _have_ to answer questions.
But that's not a good thing.

------
superbrama
He needs an indisputable paper trail showing that the money was his. That’s a
lot of cash and there’s little reason to keep all of your legitimate fiat
savings in cash like that.

~~~
URSpider94
I’m not sure of how to read your post, but you seem to be implying that the
burden is on him to prove that the money is his, when he wasn’t doing anything
illegal by carrying it, and nobody has alleged otherwise.

~~~
superbrama
He already said it wasn’t his and that he didn’t know how it was hidden in his
car. Whether under duress or not, the authorities aren’t giving the money back
as a result.

Such proof is now needed.

------
danjoc
TLDR;

>Parhamovich said the money was a friend’s.

------
peapicker
No one should carry that much in cash ever.

~~~
angersock
That's their decision to make.

And why not? It's _their_ money.

~~~
mc32
There was a lottery winner somewhere who casually carried a few hundred
thousand with him in his pickup truck. Parked it in front of a strip club. It
got stolen, thieves got his truck and money. May have recovered some, but lots
of people thought it was foolish to do so. Even if that's anyone's right.

It's just an anecdote, and not trying to sway one way or the other.

~~~
valuearb
That lottery winner was worth tens of millions, pretty sure he didn't miss it.

------
babaganoosh89

      Parhamovich said he prefers having his cash with him on hand
      in case opportunities present themselves to buy, for example, new instruments.
    

Civil forfeiture is shady as hell, but his reasoning for regularly carrying
that much cash is flimsier than a chromebook.

~~~
valuearb
He can state any legal reason he chooses. It gives the police no right to take
it from him.

