Here’s where I am puzzled but from a different angle. I thought Henry Hyde had sponsored reform legislation a decade ago to provide for speedy replevin absent clear and convincing evidence, the highest possible requirement in a court of law. There were a few exceptions such as the person being wanted on a criminal list, or previously convicted of felonies.
I’d want to know, “why” this fellow did not avail himself of this.
Here’s how I see it.
— The man had cash with him
— It is not a crime to carry cash
— there was no evidence that he had committed a crime
Thats it. Over and done. I really don’t care “why” he had the cash. And he shouldn’t have to explain it.