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)
In the end it doesn't matter, because all you are arguing is moot anyway. Do you know the government didn't even depose him? They didn't ask him where the money came from. They didn't ask about his immigration status. They didn't ask about his friends. They didn't ask why he was in Chicago. They didn't ask him anything. They just took his money based solely on the dog's preference to over 4,000 bills in Gonzolez' possession as opposed to the measly seven bills from the policemen at the station.
Listen to the government lawyer argue their appeal here. Decide for yourself.
"I doubt that this was a dealership but instead an individual selling a truck. Gonzoles said that he flew to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. If it had been a dealership there would have been more than one truck.
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 bought my car (of which they had only 1) with $13,500 cash.
"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)."
Why would the accidental loss of someone else's $ or damage to someone else's reputation concern you?
"I thought we were supposed to be innocent till proven guilty..."
Lol...that's a laugh. Not so anymore.
"You'd rather this "doofus without a clue" be criminally charged and tell his "story" on the witness stand in front of a jury? Kind of a "winner take all" strategy? You'd do that to a client of yours?"
No, his $ never should have been taken in the first place.
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.