Posted on 08/20/2006 8:57:44 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed.
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.
Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.
"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of drug use or distribution."
"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.
The full text of the ruling is available in a 36k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: US v. $124,700 (US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8/19/2006)
George III looks better every day. We seem to have traded one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away.
If as stated, this is pure BS! As a matter of fact, I'd prefer no confiscations unless accompanied by a relevant conviction. The WOD has gone too far.
This decision is blatantly wrong.
Does it raise suspicion carrying that kind of cash? Yes. Does it justify the government seizing it? No way in hell. Suspicion is not guilt!
This law has become so abused. When did Judges start ruling on feelings instead of facts?
What a crock.
Just a note: Would it be possible to amass $100,000 of cash without some drug residue being on some of the bills. Isn't that physically impossible?
I sure hope I never get a drugsniffing dog sic'd onto my wallet after I've made an ATM withdrawl.
The police department doing the confiscating gets to keep the money for operating expenses. That's part of the problem too.
When did the first group of humans select one amongst them to settle disputes???
Now, now -- they don't just rule on feelings, they also bring in penumbras and emanations.
IIRC at one time there was a study in which several bills from several different banks in the Miami area were tested for drugs.
Something like 60% of them tested positive for drug residue.
L
I can't find a source right now but I read once that upwards of 90% of all U.S. currency is tainted with drug residue.
No, it isn't. One tainted dollar bill that makes it's way into an ATM has the potential to taint hundreds of bills. I hears a stat once that said that a substantial amount of the US monetary supply is tainted.
Absolutely and utterly ridiculous. This judge should be impeached and exiled. The failed war on some drugs zealots must be stopped before they shred our entire Constitution.
The Ninth Circuit must be contagious.
Tin foil?
The lesson here is to put large sums of money in a bank account and use a wire transfer when the appropriate time comes to transfer it to the intended party. If you do otherwise, the government has decided you are a drug dealer and will confiscate your personal property with no other proof required.
'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!' G.W. Bush
When Congress passed hate crime laws, which are nothng but feelings which have become criminal. I know that is not the same as the feelings of the judge but that is part of the same legal confusion.
Washington, Sam Adams, Paul Revere, etc, had a perfect response to this kind of high-handed dealing.
When more than $10,000 in cash is either put in or taken out of a bank or other financial institution it must be reported to the government, possibly leading to the same results.
Be that as it may, I find it hard to believe that they are telling the truth. How can they expect to run a business without first starting with a bank account, a cashier's check, anything but over $100 grand in a cooler? Who the heck buys a commercial truck with cash in the first place? We can all understand a few thousand in cash for a used car, but who makes deals like this in cash? Who would accept that kind of money in exchange for a truck anyway?
I think there is more going on here than is presented in this article.
Never heard or read anything remotely similar. Source, other than delusion?
Look at a bill, THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, nuff said!!
If the "Victim" was named John Smith..., the media would have no reason to print the story!
It has nothing to do with Pres Bush -- get a life!
The next thing on the list: "Having Money in a 401(k)/Roth IRA is a Crime." I won't be surprised once Social Security is a vapor of its present form in a couple generations.
I think there is a lot more going on here as well. You don't make a cash transaction to buy a truck with that amount of money. Why not put it in a bank and get a cashier's check?
This smells.
If you put more than $10,000 in cash in the bank at one time, you have to account for where it came from because it is going to be reported. Anyone carrying $100,000 in cash is stupid IMHO!
I don't care if he was a drug kingpin, no drugs when he was stopped, no other evidence, no confiscation, period.
If you put more than $10,000 in cash in the bank at one time, you have to account for where it came from because it is going to be reported................... And that is just wrong.
ping
I suggest you read the decision.
"I sure hope I never get a drugsniffing dog sic'd onto my wallet after I've made an ATM withdrawl."
The state troopers could start a new way to earn cash...set up a half mile outside a casino and pull over winners, large amounts of cash....no arrests.....more doughnuts for the station.
Perfect summation.
It's not "nuff said" because if you ran a business where you sold commercial trucks that cost in the neighborhood of $100 grand to anyone who came in with a cooler full of cash the odds are that you would be dealing with criminals, gangsters, or persons who otherwise acquired that kind of cash by illegitimate means. I find it very hard to believe that anyone who ran a dealership would finalize a deal like that without telling the buyer to go to a bank first. You just would not want to accept that amount of cash no matter what was printed on the bills.
Please, seriously, this is the real world, not some exercise in theoretical absolutisms. I stand by my assertion that there is something very suspicious with the behavior of the defendants, and likewise anyone who would deal with them with that amount of cash.
My father ran a yacht brokerage (same idea as real estate, but with boats). Nobody would come into his office with a duffel bag full of cash and want to buy a boat. The idea is ridiculous, and anyone doing that would be shown to the door.
It may be wrong to you but it was caused by money laundering which is against the law. You can put over $10,000 in the bank -- you just have to explain where it came from which I have no problem.
Other than the two parties concerned, it realy is not anybody elses bussiness.Cash is legal to own! At what amount do you think the government should get involved? Too some a $100 is a lot of cash, to others $10,000 is mere pocket change.
What we think or feel is unimportant. Proof is what is needed.
Yup, the guvmint needs their share of the booty don't they.
Possibly, but not with the same self serving intent as with a law enforcement agency. Law enforcement stands to put that money in their own pockets (budget) by confiscation of money claimed to be "drug money". There is a definite conflict of interest built into the law. Such confiscation should be limited to cases where a felony conviction is obtained and the trial includes incontrovertable evidence that the money was derived from the sale of illegal drugs. As observed by another post, confiscations routinely occur in cases where no charges are ever filed. The standard of proof is too lax. It tramples all over personal property rights without due process of law.
While I agree with you there is something suspicion going on here, I have to say that any businessman that refuses a cash sale, regardless of the product, should not be in business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.