(Yoda voice)
Ridiculous, this is.
Posted on 08/21/2006 5:44:54 PM PDT by toaster
A federal appeals court has has ruled that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Nebraska)upheld the right of police to confiscate cash found in the rental car of Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" and neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
(Excerpt) Read more at nizenotes.com ...
One less thing I have to worry about.
Not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I don't see what crime he committed.
Cash can be evidence of a crime, but not a crime in itself. Until now.
Madness, this decision.
What, have we done away with the Due Process clause these days?
Lets hope they win on appeal.
He must not have had a refrigerator in his vehicle or his name was not Jefferson or he was not a congressman or some other good reason like that.
A fool and his money are soon departed.
A federal appeals court has has ruled that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency,"
Sure, but we shouldn't suspect a congressman with $90,000 in his freezer.
(Yoda voice)
Ridiculous, this is.
Is he here legally since he doesn't speak English according to another article on the subject?
What if the guy had a debit card that gave him access to an account containing $124,700 in U.S. Currency. Is that a crime too?
Well, the rule of thumb applies. If you have less than $50 cash on you, you can be taken up for vagrancy. If you have more than $100, it can be confiscated as "drug proceeds."
This is your criminal justice system on drugs.
Any questions?
Haven't we forgotten? Congresscritters are above the law, and it's unlawful for the FBI to search a Congresscritter's office with a warrant?
Dennis Hastert said so.
SCOTUS needs to reverse this.
This is nothing less than theft by the police. They stole this money since it had no relation to a crime.
If someone wants to buy with cash that that is their right. This is worse that the Soviet Union
That's the beauty of it. There was no crime; if there were, he'd have to have a trial and the state would actually have to prove that he was guilty of something. Much easier to just confiscate his money without any of that "due process" silliness.
The British used to do this to vessels before 1776. As I remember reading somewhere there was a minority of people in the American Colonies who didn't agree with this practice and did something about it. They also wrote a document restricting the powers of thier newly created representative republic that addressed this. Man, it's too bad we live in a democracy, instead of a republic of sovreign states, we could have a document that restricts our federal government and protects private property from illegal search and seizure by the local, state and federal governments too. We just have some crummy living breathing something or other. oh well, I wonder if Brangelina is going to adopt another kid?
I'm thinking there's more to this story than meets the eye beyond an alleged ridiculous injustice of some poor sap in a rental car with a huge sum of money.
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.