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)
"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."
Justice is a matter of process, not of outcomes (See the writings of Thomas Sowell). It matters not whether the court was right; what matters is that the procedures are unjust.
They should have to prove wrongdoing before confiscating private property. It doesn't matter how "sure" they are, if they can't get a guilty verdict, the guy walks.
Besides, the court's reasoning is faulty.
"for the purpose of buying a truck that he had never seen"
People do that all the time. They hear about something they might want to buy, and they go see it. What's odd about that?
"from a third party whom he had never met"
I don't think I've ever bought a used car from someone I knew. Again, what's odd about that?
"with the help of a friend whose name he could not recall at trial."
Just this morning, I needed to remember the name of someone I worked with from April to June of this year. Drew a complete blank. Still can't remember it.
It happens.
The standard for confiscation of private property should be much higher than it is.
Lead poisoning is a solution for this.
Property shall have the same rights, protections and priviliges as its current owner.
What are those guys ... ATF wannabe's ?
You're right. But this was why I was asking the question. Did the prosecutor feel that there was more evidence that was suppressed? I don't know and the article is lacking on why the state won the appeal; just saying that there seems to be more to this than meets the eye.
Just a random Google SWAT team image search.
There are thousands.
Scary.
We are a society, in many ways, of control freaks.
The envy might be a motive too - "this guy has more cash than me".
Nah. It's simply expedient. Face it. A guy (or guys) with $100,000 in the car are immediate suspects. Stands to reason they'd try to find a way to carry out a roadside conviction. It's been carefully crafted to stand the test of time and times.
For all of you who think we're not living in a police state.
"You can't lay this at Bush's feet, it was going on long before he came on the scene."
I didn't say anything about it being Bush's fault.
Agreed. However, I carried a $70,000.00 cashiers check in my wallet to a Chevy dealer when I bought the Vette.
Especially if you only know him by a nickname. Take the great NASCAR hero, "Junior" Johnson. Quick, what's his name? Could you swear to it in a court? (It's Robert Johnson, by the way). How about "Chubby" Checker? I have an uncle with a name like this. If he weren't my uncle I'd have a hard time coming up with his real name. (Chubby Checker's real name is Ernest Evans). There are a lot of people out there known to their friends as Tex, Slim, etc. Quick, what is the Texas oil investor "T-Bone" Pickens' real name? (It's Thomas Pickens, Jr.)
The logic appears to work like this:
Some criminals carry large amounts of cash. Therefore, anyone who carries large amounts of cash has committed a crime.
A brain has to be pickled to accept that reasoning.
How about making it so that you can only indict a living, breathing person, not some inanimate object? That would do it as well. Notice that the police did not indict Gonzolez himself, but indicted the stack of money instead.
The quitter's motto. I've seen plenty of that attitude in my lifetime. I choose not to live that way. There is no excuse to be poor with all the opportunities this country offers.
Because Corporations can be charged and fined and they are legal persons. Of course those should probably be thrown away as well or modified so that liability is not limited in case of mistakes.
"You may want to talk to 8 Marines sitting in the brig at Camp Pendleton about that."
Sadly, you're right. No excuse for treating those Marines that way.
I've bought ranch equipment for cash, one piece for over a $140k...no questions asked...'course they new me.
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.