No, I think raising the question is just fine: if you tell a story about someone carrying more money than most Americans ever have in their bank accounts in their entire lives, in cash, on their person, you're describing something extraordinarily unusual.

Again: I'm not saying he's a heroin dealer, and I said that specific to avoid this pointless preening about how it's everyone's right to carry large amounts of cash on them. Sure, I'm fine with that; in fact: I think you will find it difficult to find anyone to take the other side of that argument on HN (and HN is a big, complicated place, giving you some idea of just how banal that argument is.) So let's assume that's not what I'm talking about.

If it helps, though this isn't really my intent, assume my subtextual allegation is that this story is copypasta.

Not sure about that. If he took the money out of a bank, there are forms to be filed. If he received it from someone in a trade or business, there are forms to be filed. If he found it and was on the way to the bank to deposit it, there are forms to be filed.

The money didn't magically appear in his pockets.

Sure, people carry around cash all the time, there isn't a problem with that - but carrying around $80,000 in cash is highly unusual. It's not something normally done. I don't know anyone who would travel with that kind of cash because it could be stolen, by cops or by anyone.

When receiving a large amount of cash for a legitimate sale of something, or other kind of legit transaction taking place, the first thing most people would probably think to do is to go to their bank branch in the local area and deposit the money ASAP, and then get on the train. Large deposits are tracked, I think you have to fill out a form, so maybe he just didn't want to have the tax man look at what's going on (points to possibly shady dealings).

The fact is that walking around with $80,000 in cash is a huge risk (unless you're a billionaire - but then you're probably not taking a train), it's not something most people would typically do. It appears a bit shady without OP giving any other details. He claims it wasn't for heroin, but what if he's purposely omitting that it was actually for cocaine. I'd like to know more about OP's story, but I doubt we'll get any answers.

Should the police take the money without cause? No. Can we question what he was up to? Yes. It's risky, as cash can be stolen from you with no recourse. It's also a very inconvenient way to pay someone, since it's physically large and would take a long time to count out.

Sure, nobody (here) would disagree that people should be able to carry as much cash as they want without fear of illegal search but the whole “he plead guilty and had multiple years of probation” rightly makes people wonder what did he plead guilty to? since it clearly wasn’t civil asset forfeiture if they charged him with criminal charges and then he plead guilty to criminal charges.

>It's a free country

Obviously, it isn't.

>He was on his way back to Northern California to pay someone for some stuff that had been fronted + re-up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this very much sounds like "drugs". If that's the case, your point about him never being involved in "heroin" sales is now just semantics, because he's still engaged, to some degree, in the movement of drugs between states.

In cash? Did you tell him "this is a bad idea, you should wire the money instead"? What if he had been mugged? What if he lost the suitcase? I arranged the transportation of $25,000 in cash (I sold a car, it was a gag, I was very young, and it was an extraordinarily bad idea that cost me thousands of dollars), and just as a physical object that's pretty big. Also: where did he get the cash from? I had trouble getting it.

so it for was drugs, just not heroin.

The "civil" part of Civil Asset Forfeiture precludes criminal felony charges..

Why the hell would you ever plead to something you didn't do if you had the resources to fight it? I get how they might pressure some kid into a plea, but they'd be taking my ass to trial, and yes, I'd gladly pay the legal fees if it came to it, over basically selling out my good name.

A long time ago, in a nearby galaxy, Broward Detective Vicki Cutcliffe grabbed my client's crotch in the Ft. Lauderdale airport, hoping to find crack, which she did. Judge Roettger was a frequent user of the airport and found this behavior unacceptable. He suppressed the evidence.

One of the 2%, I guess.

98% of criminal defendants are actually guilty, and are just seeking the best deal possible. Prosecutors are strongly disincentivized to prosecute cases without evidence because they get demoted or fired if their win ratio (including pleas) drops below 90%.

Public defenders don't advise their clients to take pleas in the absence of any evidence tying them to the crime, as claimed in the OP.

if nothing else, the 6-7 figure cost of defending oneself in court is incentive enough to take a plea.

This is false, unless you're convicted of murder and you choose the most expensive lawyers, and you proceed to trial, meaning that there was sufficient actual evidence of guilt that a prosecutor would risk their record and that a judge would commit the time and resources of his court to have a trial. Pre-trial costs for non-violent felonies are in the 4-low 5 figures. Violent felonies top out in the mid-5 figures. You don't see 6 figure costs outside of murder cases, and 7 figure costs all involve extremely wealthy defendants.

The financial cost of pleading guilty is 10x-100x the cost of defending oneself in court. If, as the OP claimed, his cousin was innocent, no defense attorney (public defender or otherwise) would have recommended he plead guilty, because based on what the OP said, there was insufficient evidence for the case to even make it to the preliminary hearing. In many states, the law enforcement agency at issue would have also paid his attorneys' fees.

What state was this in? We can look up the predicates for that charge in the state, and then be talking more coherently about what might have happened here. Thanks!

I'm guessing North Dakota? That's 3 states away from Chicago on the only Amtrak route from there to Portland.

Were the charges federal? Did North Dakota (or whatever) police intercept him, or a DEA TFG?

If your cousin was actually innocent he should sue his lawyer for malpractice.

The facts as you state them don't support any criminal charges, and any competent lawyer would be immediately aware of that and recommend against pleading.