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)
Isn't it neat the way the Democrats and Republicans have divvied up the Bill of Rights? Too bad it's almost impossible to find honest Democrats who respect the Second Amendment, and hard to find honest Republicans who respect the Fourth and Fifth.
Andy was a Peace Officer. They kept the peace.
Now, we have Law Enforcement Officers. They enforce the law.
There is a huge difference. I miss Peace Officers.
Ever since the Bank Secrecy Act and the Patriot Act, which many of your fellow FReepers applauded.
It's all part of the "War on Terror" (terror being a tactic and not a named enemy).
These were "emergency" measures asked for and passed during the G.W. Bush administration.
dsc: George III looks better every day. We seem to have traded one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away.
EE: You can't lay this at Bush's feet, it was going on long before he came on the scene.
dsc: I didn't say anything about it being Bush's fault.
Then explain your remark.
Umm hi Tancred Did you read the story? no we cant! nobody that has 124k in cash can satisfactorily demonstrate that we came by the money honestly. the court just ruled that if we have that much we ARE DRUG DEALERS period and the cops(read that as fascist p**ks) cans take our mnoney and not even arrest us so your premise is wrong we are now officially a soviet police state plane and simple
Now, we have Law Enforcement Officers. They enforce the law.
The only way I can see to prevent this country from decaying into anarchy is to reinstate the distinction between peace officers and rev'nooers.
The 3000-mile away "George III" he was referring to was King George III of England who was our Monarch up until 1776. Nothing to do with Bush. Remember the part of the Declaration of Independence that went: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
Having money is a crime. Taxes are based on your ability to pay.
"Then explain your remark."
George III was the King of England that George Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers rebelled against.
BS. the wire transfer since it would have been more than 10,000 would have alerted the gov. The government has no right to take the money if they do not charge you with a crime and than if you are found innocent then the money should be returned with interest. It's a free country and if you want to have 100,000 in your cooler you should not have it taken away from you on a lark.
It's really not a free country anymore. That are thousands of laws on the books. Most of inadvertantly violate some of them everyday. If you choose to get into a pissing match with a law enforcement officer, you can be sure you will learn the hard way about all manner of trivial infractions.
Actually, it's "Hey, look at all this money. Cool. Sure is "suspicious", how useful it would be to our department, isn't it?
Some people think Mr. Gonzolez was a drug dealer, thief, or somesuch. Maybe. Perhaps Mr. Gonzoles was a thief. But the crooks who stole his money CERTAINLY were.
Time to scrap the war on drugs and use it as tax revenue. I really don't have problems with people killing themselves.
Also the pressure to put cash in the banks for these reasons, benefits the banks; when you deposit money, it becomes a liability to the bank, a limited liability; if the bank fails, you have to wait in line while the bankrupcy process works, and all the creditors are paid, you being one. You may get your money or may not. You lose control over it when it is in the banks that you had when you held the cash. Most banks don't go under and are safe. But who knows? In 2002 the Argentines found out just how safe their money was not-in their banks.
The same with all the "vices." Why create crooks and make them wealthy? The vice lords, especially the big drug dealers, can now affect world politics and our freedom with their dough.
The US is a bit different than argentina for many reasons.
I wouldn't worry about bank solvency, but then again you're right; the banking industry does want the cash to make more cash.
Some people think
thinking something does not make it true. Prove he is a drug dealer than by all means take the money. If not than give it back plus interest.
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.