Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

The Newspaper ^ | Staff

[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)

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Govmnt confiscates property thru "eminent domain". Busts thru front door at 4 am and shoots anything that moves (too bad for you if they have the wrong house). Seizes money just because it's there. Looks like fascism has already taken hold in the USA.

[e_castillo]

It happens all the time along the border. I know of several people who have had cash confiscated at the border for no reason other than having too much at one time on their person.

[Rb ver. 2.0]

20 years ago when I sold Real Estate a guy from out of state paid $85,000 cash in $5-10-20's for a piece of land.

The bank depostited his money just like it was anyone elses.

[Eagle Eye]

You can't lay this at Bush's feet, it was going on long before he came on the scene.

[ffusco]

about 35 years ago.

[panaxanax]

"These types of people often buy cars with cash."

Uh, I recently purchased a 2005 Chevy truck and paid over $25K in CASH for it. It's not just 'these kind of people' that like to deal with cash. BTW, I'm 5th generation Made in USA white Scotch/Irish self-employed male. Everything we own is paid for and has been done so with cash, even our home.

Mexicans and folks from other countries have always liked to deal with green money. They don't trust banks or cashiers checks as do lots of the old timers. Look at the Amish and the Mormons. They keep money in the form of cash, gold & silver so that it is readily available if the SHTF. Not a bad idea if you think about it.

My business (wild ginseng buyer) requires that I have large amounts of cash on hand to pay my customers. Next week I will be carrying upwards of 10K with me all the time. It's all legal and above board. I pay taxes and record all transactions. Am I a criminal? NO!

Under this ruling it seems to me that armored cars might be the next target as a source of revenue for the local authorities.

We are inching toward a Police State more and more everyday under the auspices of the war on drugs, war on terror etc. It's past time for us to wake up.

[DB]

"These types" is referring to the person in the news story.

And yes, I know people who use cash to buy lots of things.

And nowhere did I say that made you or them a criminal in doing so. Quite the opposite.

[thinkthenpost]

I believe you are naive and who be surprised at the number of cash only transactions that take place in this country and are largely off the books. By the way, most of them would be perfectly legal except for the tax issues involved.

[pageonetoo]

My father ran a yacht brokerage

It's people like you that become judges like this. You want to reason things not seen.

NO DRUGS WERE FOUND!

I'll give you some first-hand experience. I don't need to bring my "daddy" into the fray. I built houses in NC for years. I bui8lt a house for cash. I got haalf up front, and the balance when the sheetrock went into it. I gave them a nice house.

Drug dealers? NO! The folk that I built a nice home for had sold their house in Detroit, and come back home, after he retired from FOMOCO. They were black, and "country" (despite 40 years in MI) and didn't like banks.

I sat a rickety kitchen table talking to "Pop", while mom went back to the bedroom and returned with stacks of hundreds and fifties.

Of course, that was a different time.Now socialist trolls felt everybody must be a drug dealer or other type criminal, if they don't like banks, and pay with cash.

In another first-hand account, I carry a lot of cash sometimes. I employ sub-contractors who need to cash my large check on a saturday, so they can pay others. Many small guys operate like that. Of course, to you that is probably illegal or questionable, too!

I visit pawn shops several times a wseek, as well. I buy a lot of good stuff. Last week, my daughter found a stack of almost new first-rate DVD's and we bought 38 of them for a hundred bucks, CASH. We went to another store, and bought a 30g video iPod for $200. I didn't get a box, but I had to take the plastic protector off the screen. Daughter didn't care. We went to another pawn shop, and I bought a car. I paid cash for it, too... and will continue. Money talks and BS walks...

Better start walking!

[KeepUSfree]

But, hey , he COULD have, at one time smoked pot. Kill him, take all his worldly possesions. I mean how are we ever going to keep this country free and safe for the children if we don't stop folks like this. I've seen lives destroyed by drugs. And, if this is what it takes, so be it. /idiot drug warrior mode
Sadly enough, there WILL be folks on this board who support this ruling.

Of course, they are nothing more than little Hitler's under the guise of "people who care".

It's a shame most folks don't actually understand the meaning of the word "Freedom". They think it's something everyone should have - right up until it conflict's with their "personal values".

[Tancred]

It's people like you that become judges like this....I don't need to bring my "daddy" into the fray......Now socialist trolls felt everybody must be a drug dealer or other type criminal.....Of course, to you that is probably illegal or questionable, too!......Money talks and BS walks.....Better start walking!

If you don't like this decision, then you are perfectly free to petition for a change in the law. For that matter, there is nothing stopping you from writing to the newspaper or protesting outside the courthouse.

But it is extremely rude to make personal attacks on someone just because you're mad at how the judges ruled in this case & are not happy with this law.

Throughout my posts on this topic, I have tried to argue how such a transaction could raise red flags in a reasonably-minded person. I have also tried to point out the hazards that may arise from such deals (such as the increased risk of theft, accidental loss, or damage to reputation if one party turns out to be not on the up-and-up).

I like to think that I can present my points on a matter objectively and politely. Why is it that several other posters on this topic can't do the same? This is only one of two forums that I participate in on the Internet; on the other forum, posters refrain from personal attacks, apologize if they give offense (inadvertently or otherwise), and are kept in line by other posters & moderators. It's too bad the same can't happen here at Free Republic.

[pepperdog]

The poor man, if he appeals all the money will be taken by the lawyers. What has this country come to when a person is not allowed to possess their own assets? This is terribly wrong, it ranks right up there with confiscation of property.

[TKDietz]

"'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."

Not to mention the fact that trace amounts of drugs are often found on currency in circulation, especially cocaine, because people roll it into a tube to snort coke through.

[ndt]

"Never heard or read anything remotely similar. Source"

I believe it was originally quoted by the guy that runs Capitol Hill Blue based on anonymous inside sources. It was since retracted.

[TKDietz]

This guy may very well have been carrying drug money. The government did not prove that though. The higher court apparently ruled that having a large sum of money in your vehicle is proof enough of drug activity. That's bad, because that will expand forfeitures even more and a lot of people who weren't guilty of a thing will have their money seized. Sure, it's stupid to carry a lot of cash, but should we punish people who have done nothing wrong other than not use particularly good sense? These forfeitures are getting out of hand. In my county law enforcement seizes at least several hundred thousand dollars a year. Most are not large seizures. Often it's less than a hundred dollars, or just a few hundred, or maybe even a grand or two. They pretty much any money they find and then file forfeiture suits and serve the "victims" complaints that they must respond to in twenty days. Often these people have no idea how to respond to a lawsuit so when they twenty days have passed and no Answer is filed, the prosecutors just send the judge a default judgment to sign and they get to keep the money. Then they spend it on important things like "company cars" for all prosecutors, some of their staff, several in law enforcement, the wife of a cop who they claim is in law enforcement because she is a probation officer, etc. All of our prosecutors have their cell phones they use for personal purposes as well as work paid for, their memberships to the gym are covered, cable TV in all of their plush offices, fancy all expense paid continuing legal education trips, some furniture they purchased to "loan" to the judge for his plush personal break room (this one ticks me off worse than the others), and on and on.

[thinkthenpost]

I reject your #1, the opinion indicates the money was bundled in groupings consistent with the number of folks who contributed money to the purchase of the vehicle and the amount they contributed. I reject your #4 in that we know he didn't have a credit card to rent a car with, so he had to have also paid cash for the plane ticket.

I can assume all kinds of things based on the facts presented here, but nothing was proved, taking them together no more makes it a fact that this money was drug money than taking them separately.

The asset forfeiture guidelines are a joke and are routinely abused IMO.

[Tancred]

Hey everybody, please take a few minutes to read what the judges actually wrote on this case, not just what was reported in the article:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/moneyseize.pdf

Here's a revealing quote from the decision itself:

Gonzolez purportedly carried $125,000 in cash with him on his flight, for the purpose of buying a truck that he had never seen, from a third party whom he had never met, with the help of a friend whose name he could not recall at trial.

Folks, if you just take the time to look at the actual decision itself, you will find that it supports my initial suspicions that these guys were up to no good. I think that the court made the right decision on this one.

[Mr. Jeeves]

This ruling just defines cash as the offical medium of exchange for the criminal element. Honest men, we have now been informed, use electronic forms of exchange which the government can carefully monitor. ;)

Why don't they just go ahead, make currency illegal, and get it over with?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Thanks, NapkinUser, but I refer you to the information in the excellent link at #139 rebutting CHB.

[thinkthenpost]

I did read the opinion and as I have previously stated you can have all the suspicions you like, and you may be right, but the government did not IMO justify the forfeiture they did not prove anything.

I hope this is appealed to the full circuit and then to the SCOTUS, but I am sorry to say it will most likely be upheld, and so this country continues it's march toward the trash bin of history. I am starting to believe that shining city on the hill is very tarnished and in need of renewal.