Replies

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.

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.

it supports my initial suspicions that these guys were up to no good

So when somebody suspects (but can't even begin to prove) that you're up to no good, they can take all of your money too?

Beyond a reasonable doubt and a jury of one's peers seems to be missing here.

All this is is a welfare program for law enforcement agencies.

Just because there are some "suspicious circumstances" does not mean the person was involved with drug activity. I did read the case, and saw where the court said that a dog alerting to a pile of money that had been in a rental vehicle was "strong evidence" of drug activity. I say that's a bunch of bull manure. Those dogs alert all the time when there are no drugs present at all and rental cars have probably all had drugs in them at one point or another. People who think forfeitures without good evidence of drug activity are just fine will sing a different tune the day they have a couple of grand with them they had just earned or whatever and law enforcement seizes it. That happens all the time. They'll take people's rent money, the proceeds from a check they've just cashed, and so on. Then these people have to hire lawyers and pretty much prove that none of the money was from a drug transaction or intended to be used for a drug transaction. Most don't have the resources to fight these cases, and the easier we make it for law enforcement to seize our money without good reason the more people out there who will get screwed. Is it so much to ask that the government have to present some substantial evidence to prove their case before they deprive us of our property? Whether these people in this case were involved with drugs or not isn't so important. What matters is that the government should have to prove their case in order to succeed on a forfeiture action or else there will be innocent people being robbed of their money all the time by law enforcement. If we don't hold them to their burden of proof in every case then innocent people will suffer.

"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.

Maybe he planned to buy a Lamborghini for his mistress. That he's telling an arguably unlikely story is not enough moral basis for taking his money.

OK:

I'm late into this, for the time being I'm cube bound; but I also took time to read the link...

Tancred not only needs some support here, but he (she?)'s also right.

I filled an 8.5 by 11 with reasons Senor what's it's name is guilty:
Mostly because he is a lying SOB from the start...The rental, his record, and probably his immigration status (oddly not mentioned).

One court determined his lines to be "consistent" but ignored "stupid", or "unlikely", or "trading on a stereotype", or a dozen other rational responses to the idea of three illiterate (might I suggest illegal?) immigrants pooling $127 grand, to buy a blind truck from a 'friend of a friend' who'd already sold it, who also bought a one way airline ticket (cash?) - but returned by (probably more expensive) rental car that was rented by a third party no one could name, and who traded a small carry on bag full of tin foil wrapped cash (that got through security) for an ice chest full of said cash on the back seat....and alerted a drug sniffing dog that ignored a control sample drawn from several sources(!)

Sorry folks, I oppose forfeiture under many conditions, I especially oppose 'imminent domain' for frivolous purposes:
this clown is guilty, the money is dirty, and I wonder where his body is going to be found after this all cools down.