Posted on 08/21/2006 5:44:54 PM PDT by toaster
The way it works is that the money is arrested, not the person. Money has no rights under the law, so it can't be given due process. Generally, amounts in excess of $10,000 are subject to confiscation. The courts have upheld this as reasonable in fighting the war on drugs. In order to get your money back, you must prove that it was not used in a crime, so the burden of proof is reversed. This policy has been most notoriously abused in the great state of Louisiana (anyone surprised?). The war on personal property rights continues...
At least that war on drugs has proven as effective as it has.
Had Gomez tossed $124,700 into a Garden State Parkway tollbooth, he would now be Corzine's Attorney General.
They sit back and rake in the kick backs, bribes, and go out and confiscate people's property while Pablo Escobar builds and empire is S. America. Then they ask June and Ward to allow them to raise taxes and hire more agents, and of course the Cleavers just about pee thier pants on the way to the ballot box (after stopping off at the liquor store for more Tanqurey and olives to celebrate their good work on behalf of the children). It's brilliant!
They just take the money away
sounds exactly like Zimbabwe
Freedom is not free. We're just getting closer to paying the next installment, it seems.
apparently not accused of a crime. They just take it.
maybe someone should ask this judge... anyone find an email address?
The courts have upheld this as reasonable in fighting the war on drugs
Then the courts need to be changed.
He was on his way to pay his taxes.......
The reason why criminals often avoid bank accounts is obvious.If you're a drug dealer,money launderer,terrorist,etc the last thing you want is for the police to be able to track your activities.
Although the story doesn't offer proof that the guy is a criminal,I think it's quite reasonable to suspect that he is.
I do think,however,that in a situation like this the guy should be able to go to court,give a plausible explanation of where he got the money and why he was carrying so much cash and,if his story checks out,he could get it back.
According to the story, all of that happened in this case except the part about getting his money back.
Today's cash is possibly more traceable than many bank accounts, there's so much technology and little tricks built into it. The magnetic strip, for example, isn't just for ATMs -- it creates a cumulative field that can be detected in large bundles like the one this guy was found with.
Would this qualify for your ping list?
Unreal that someone should have to worry about the police in the USA confiscating his money. What ever happened to them having to prove that it was for something illegal (innocent until proven guilty)? I understand the problem with illegal activity, but for cryin' out loud, they should have a better reason that suspicion just because other criminals do it. I wonder just how much it's going to cost this guy in legal fees to get the money back?
Even if this guy happens to be a drug dealer who has managed to avoid letting the police find any evidence of that, the theft of his money is still wrong. Any time the government is allowed to steal things on mere suspicion, the bar for what constitutes adequate suspicion gets lowered.
I don't care what I suspect, or you suspect, or anyone suspects. Was the guy deprived of his propety? Yes. Did he receive due process of law in that regard? No. Does the Supreme Law of the Land say that taking money in such fashion is illegal. You betcha. Does that make the people who took and and refuse to give it back anything other than thieves? I don't see how, unless their level of armament ups their crime to robbery.
That is totally backwards. He presented evidence that he had no criminal history. It's not his burden to prove he's innocent, but the state/feds' burden to prove he's guilty. The only thing he's guilty of is carrying money in a cooler.
I haven't read the entire case, but from the article posted, the guy isn't tied to drugs or other crimes. Obviosuly he didn't show up on the NCIC.
Again if I have a bank debit card that gives me access to $124K, does that make me a criminal? What if I decide to put $20 a week under the carpet of my car trunk and eventually that amounts to $100K. There are no laws, that I'm aware of, that prohibit having any amount of cash on you at any given time. yes you might have to account for the source of the cash, which this fellow did.
If I want to cash all my paychecks and put the cash in the trunk of my car, that is now a felony because it is over some un-discolose amount set by the feds as "suspicious"? It's not about carrying the cash, it's about being able to trace the cash. The government preferes electronic transactions they can trace.
in a situation like this the guy should be able to go to court,give a plausible explanation
He did. He still lost.
Make it $200/week. Then it'd only take you ten years.
If that's how it works, I don't see why the cops aren't 'arresting' everything from my house to my penny loafers. Pretty much anything I own "could have" been used in drug trafficking. To get it back, all I'd have to do is prove that it wasn't. What's that take, a few years and thousands of dollars (assuming I have any, after the cops 'arrest' my bank accounts)? Sounds like a sweet deal for solving a city's budget shortfall.
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.