Posted on 12/13/2003 6:41:51 AM PST by Pern
LAFAYETTE -- State Police suspect a Florida man who had $243,790 in the rear bumper of his car Wednesday could have some involvement with the drug trade, a State Police spokesman said Friday.
No drugs were found in the car, but investigators said the man "changed his story several times," when he was asked what he was doing with a load of hidden cash, Trooper Will Williams said.
Troopers wrote the man a traffic ticket and seized the cash and his car, Williams said.
"There are suspicions, but that's why we're still investigating," Williams said. "People transport drugs, they have to pay for it."
Charles D. Weis, of Bradenton, Fla., was not booked with any crimes -- drug-related or not, Williams said.
Wednesday, a trooper stopped Weis' 1995 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme for a "moving violation," westbound on Interstate 10 in St. Martin Parish, Williams said.
Williams would not specify what traffic law Weis allegedly violated, saying if he did, then drivers and potential law-breakers would stop breaking that law and preclude troopers from pulling them over.
Once Weis was pulled over, troopers "discovered evidence" that led them to search his car, Williams said.
Williams would not detail what type of evidence troopers discovered, how the evidence was discovered or whether Weis was acting suspiciously -- saying to divulge that information would help "the bad guys."
"There was something that led them to look there," Williams said.
Troopers searched and found a compartment hidden in the rear bumper of Weis' car, packed with $243,790 in cash, Williams said.
"There's evidently something going on here," Williams said.
Earlier this week, troopers made an almost identical find -- an out-of-town driver with nearly $500,000 in hidden cash, but no drugs.
In both cases, troopers seized the cash and vehicles, charging the drivers only with a traffic violation.
Attorney Frank Dawkins said if police suspect someone is running drug money -- but have no direct drug evidence -- they'll often offer the driver to sign a form that "relinquishes" the money to investigators.
If someone is running drug money and lacks documentation to explain where the money came from, they'll often sign to avoid jail time, Dawkins said.
Williams said it is a violation of a federal statute to transport more than $9,999 in cash.
Dawkins, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, said that is not true.
There are some banking regulations about transactions over a certain amount, but people can legally carry as much cash as they'd like, Dawkins said.
In 1996, Dawkins defended three Vietnamese men who were pulled over in Scott with $57,000 in cash they planned to use to buy a shrimp boat.
Scott Police Chief Jerry Carpenter was later indicted on charges he planted drugs in the men's car in order to seize the cash. He was convicted in 1998 of malfeasance in officer and filing a false police report.
Dawkins said when law enforcement seizes property, they must hold onto it for a period of time before officially taking possession.
It's none of your fu*king business what he's doing with the money.
Attorney Frank Dawkins said if police suspect someone is running drug money -- but have no direct drug evidence -- they'll often offer the driver to sign a form that "relinquishes" the money to investigators.
If someone is running drug money and lacks documentation to explain where the money came from, they'll often sign to avoid jail time, Dawkins said.
What a load of BS. It looks like the Christmas stockings for the St. Martin Parish Sheriff's Dept will be overflowing this year.
Legal extortion, either you give this money to us, or we'll take it and put you in jail for an indefinate period. Funny, we just elected a new sheriff that I honestly thought would bring some honor and integrity to the parish.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
Are you sure this was in America. I am shocked Troopers will not tell you the law so they can ticket you first. Last week a Texas case was looked at by the U.S. Supreme Court where the prosecuter was arguing it was OK to lie to judges to get a conviction.
Are you claiming that people should not be allowed to carry cash ? That there should be no consequences to unlawful search and seizure?
Once again, a statement is made, supporting an action specifically forbidden in the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.
I also believe that this is a violation of the 5th Amt, as well.
When you indicate that you believe he should forfeit his money, just because the LEO's found it, so there should be consequences, your arguments fly in the face of the principle of "Innocent, until proven guilty"
I could add more apparent violations, but after all, reason is not accepted here! Welcome, comrade! (sarcasm off...)
The g'umt requires NO reporting of a $3000 transaction, unless the law changed since yesterday! Your idiot has no idea about the laws.
There has been a lot of conversation about Rush's $9900 transactions. In the case of the multiple withdrawals, there is an assumption that the withdrawals were part of a scheme to defraud the g'umt, or to conceal illegal activity. Conclusions are made, without facts presented. Welcome to the USA in 2003!
Of course not, but I don't see a crime committed here. So the guys had a lot of cash on them, and they were nervous. Wouldn't you be nervous if you had a bundle like that, even if obtained leagly? I would.
The Troopers story of them committing an undescribed 'moving violation' just doesn't wash. This little quad-parish area (St. Martin, Lafayette, St. Landry, & Iberia) is well known for it corruption.
If no drugs were found, then there was no crime committed. This is legal stealing, plain and simple. Who do you call when the police are robbing you?
Your ideal of a freewill choice, in this situation, is an assumption, on your part, that he was willing to go to jail. The evidence, in this article, leads me to my assumption, of his innocence, until he goes to court.
It is none of the g'umt's bizness where I got my cash (or where he got his). It is none of YOUR bizness where he got the cash.
If the g'umt, or YOU, feel he has broken a law, they (you) must prove it, IN A COURT OF LAW. Opinions don't account for as much credibility, there.
On what basis do you feel the g'umt has the right to take his cash? Because he can't, or won't tell them the source. If he was a drug runner, they have to find drugs. If he was going to buy drugs, with the cash, it is incumbent on the LE, to follow him, and get him with the goods. Then, IMO, they still have no right to the money, without conviction, IN A COURT, of breaking a law!
Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ?
Article [VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
CJ, Just which parts of this do you not understand?
He chose to avoid going to court by reliquishing his apparently ill-gotten cash. He was offered a chance to face charges and prove his innocence, but he chose not to. The members of society are well within their rights to assume the money is ill-gotten gain if the owner is unwilling to prove otherwise.
You stop someone walking down the street carrying a TV set or a case of beer near a looted store, and are within your rights to ask if he has a receipt for it.
I grew up in a
small, Polish neighborhood on
Chicago's south side.
Many people there
had a weird mis-trust for banks,
and routinely kept
really big amounts
of cash stashed around their house.
(People would do things
like buy a new house
and pay thirty-thousand cash
rather than mortgage.)
They weren't drug fiends,
just people who preferred cash
rather than the banks...
Read my #15, and respond, please, to defend your position. Of do you not recognize the Constitution, as the arbiter?
IMO, you are supporting a fascist view. The G'umt has controls, and limits, in a free society...
I think what he is claiming is that the cops need to do their job. If they suspect the money is illegal then they should arrest the person and make their case. If they can't make a case then he walks, money and all. I believe most people think that the law should work that way. A minor investigation of this persons finances should turn up the information needed to determine if this person could reasonably be assumed to have access to that amount of cash legally.
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.