Stilley asked to search the vehicle and said Yang agreed.
Ding ding ding! We have a loser!
Police will almost never ask you questions or ask to search your home/vehicle/office/whatever in order to do you a favor or in an attempt to get evidence NOT to arrest you. While police don't want to waste their time, their job is to find crimes and arrest people. Respectfully decline to answer intrusive questions and always decline a search. Obviously, if the officer is investigating a break-in nearby, a vandal, or a significant crime you are aware of - it is in your interest to cooperate and send the criminal to jail. We want police to catch bad people! But you should be suspicious of government, and police are government.
Remember, the government is allowed to lie to you and it is considered good policing: "we just need to clear some things up," "everyone else cooperated and went home, you're the holdout," "just need this for my report," "if you don't answer the questions, I might have to arrest you." Whatever they can say to get you to answer questions. But lying to the government is a crime. And even if your answers are innocent and make sense to you - they may appear to incriminate you to the officer (civil vs. traditional weddings, large amounts of cash as savings instead of in a bank, the fact that driving to California takes ~24 hours and some people will take 3 days to drive that much). In many instances you are required to give identifying information (and that would include while driving, must show ID), everything else is voluntary.
Stilley reported the cash smelled slightly of marijuana, and a K-9 dog reacted to the money. However, a subsequent analysis by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation crime lab yielded no drug residue.
Same ole' story, same ole' song and dance. I smell drugs! Search... finds a gun... "I knew it!" Smelling marijuana is the panacea for searching, many officers I know would be fine with marijuana being legal as long as they could still use it as a pretext to search. It used to be the same with "smelling a meth lab," just magic words to negate the 4th Amendment.
And drug dogs can be utterly worthless from an investigation standpoint too. The Supreme Court says the effectiveness of drug dogs is beyond challenge. Even if it can be PROVEN that the particular dog in question is wrong more than right, it is still a free pass on the 4th Amendment. So, if you have a choice between A) a drug dog that is 98% correct and the 2% failure is when they *should* have detected drugs and didnt, or B) a dog that is wrong 75% of the time, but always errs on the side of allowing a search... which drug dog would the police choose to accomplish their goal of searching and catching as many people as possible?
That no trace of drugs was found on the currency is actually kind of surprising, considering nearly all money is "used" and some of it is likely to be in contact with some drugs at some point. But if 9/10 people couldn't detected the same smell of marijuana as the dog, I wouldn't be surprised.
However, given the confusion, divergent stories, and finding $25k wrapped up with two unemployed people in a rental car - I understand the officers suspicion. I may have seized the money too, under current laws. But then the system should have taken over to get a better result. What are the odds that these two people, bringing drug money with them fro a drug purchase, lost $25k in drug money and then hired an attorney to fight for four years to get it back? Seems doubtful. It is clear the government couldn't prove the money was related to a crime, or they'd be charged. When in doubt, the citizen should win and the government shouldn't be able to take their property.
My proposal (not sure if I have posted this before):
1) Reasonable suspicion standard stays the same, seize suspicious cash.
2) Money is then assumed to be drug money, as it is now, and the DA can move to deem the money forfeit to the State (same as now).
3) Citizen can file an affidavit swearing the money is theirs and they obtained it legally (NEW step).
4) Burden then shifts and the DA must prove that the funds are for or proceeds of illegal activity, can request a hearing but the burden is on the state
5) Judge can set a hearing or release the money - if a hearing is set, the DA has the burden of proof. Hearings must be timely, say ~90 days from the date of seizure.
6) If the burden of proof is not met, the State pays the court costs of the citizen whose assets they seized and time they wasted.
Seems unlikely a cartel would file an affidavit and go through that process. Also seems less likely that a citizen would lose money simply because they couldn't afford to continue fighting the man.
Who are we kidding anyway... the cartels aren't short on cash. Clearly the program isn't that effective at starving the cartels. But it does provide an incentive for departments to up their funding...