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)
"Most dealerships will not accept over $9000 cash. If you want to buy a vehicle without credit you will usually have to pay with a combination of check, cash and multiple cashier checks all less than $9000 each."
I've worked in plenty of dealerships. Not only is that not true in my experience, but such a policy puts the store at risk of a charge of structuring a deal to avoid reporting cash payments.
It is pretty depressing that so many, especially here, think if you have $100,000+ in cash you must be guilty of something.
And even worse that the government has the right to take it from you even if they have no evidence much less convict you of obtaining it illegally.
We've become a people that cower before the almighty nanny government. The simple truth is the government doesn't like cash. They try to discourage the use of it whenever possible. And the reason why? Because they want their share. And if you use cash they can't be sure that they are getting their share. So people have to be made afraid to use it. And clearly many now are...
It's $10,000 in a single transaction or a series of related transactions that trigger the requirement, but you are right that lesser amounts MAY be reported if deemed suspicious by the entity (store, bank, etc.) that takes the cash.
This is insane.
I wish I had that type of xpediency.
That's not true.
I bought a $34k car with a single personal check.
__>and my daughter saved her lil butt off and was detirmend to pay 16K cash for her first car. They took 16K in cash. She drove off the lot with a grin the size of Montana.
This needs to be appealed.
She must be a drug dealer!
Sorry - I had too...
Good for her!
We've been in deep do do.
I totally agree.
This is the one area were Reagan went seriously wrong.
"The WOD has gone too far..."
On the contrary, some would say that it has gone just far enough....it is clear if you use cash, you may well be regarded an enemy of the state.
Wow, with this ruling it means Bill Gates should get the death penalty for drug activity.
If the government can take the homes of US citizens because a corporation wants the land to build on, as was ruled by the SCOTUS in Kelo, why in the world should a non-citizen be surprised that the government can take cash away? There are no private property rights in the USA.
Yeah, and if this had been 1500 cell phones, folks here would already have the suspect convicted and hanged.
Yep, guilty until proven innocent. Lovely standard you have that turns the Constitutional one on its ear.
The United States presented a number of factors which, taken together, demonstrated the Defendant currency had been exchanged for drugs: (1) the driver possessed a large amount of cash, mostly in twenty dollar bills, packaged and secreted in a manner consistent with drug proceeds; (2) the driver lied to the law enforcement officer about the presence of cash in the vehicle and about his own criminal history; (3) a drug dog alerted to the area of the vehicle where the defendant currency was located and alerted to the defendant currency itself, but did not alert to a controlled sample of currency; (4) the driver had traveled from California to Chicago on a one-way airline ticket purchased with cash; (5) the driver was returning in a car rented in another person’s name; (6) the driver’s story he traveled to Chicago to buy a commercial truck, using small bills, from a person whose name and address he did not know, was implausible.
Treffner's "quote" comes from Capitol Hill Blue, the same people (er, person) who brought you Terry Wilkinson.
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.