Driving With Money is a Crime

Nize Notes ^

[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.

[supercat]

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.

Any judge who buys that logic is at best a thief.

Was this person deprived of property? Yes. Did this person receive due process of law? No. Since the person was deprived of property, such taking to be lawful must be the result of due process.

Too bad there's no way all the thieves in government will ever be punished.

[Gay State Conservative]

I'm going to bed...so I'll just say that normal,law abiding folks do go around with $100K in cash in their car...criminals do.

The guy in question wasn't arrested...or jailed.The money in his possession was seized.His explanation as to its origin is suspect,IMO.

I say let this be a lesson to all...if you're on the level in your life keep your money in the bank and use checks like other "on the level" folks in this country do.

[supercat]

The guy in question wasn't arrested...or jailed.

Why not?

[PistolPaknMama]

The guy in question wasn't arrested...or jailed.The money in his possession was seized.

Exactly! Why can his assets be seized if he's not suspected or even arrested? How can his assets be guilty if HE isn't?

His explanation as to its origin is suspect,IMO

You are missing the point, as I am beating my head. If I go to a horse auction and I know there is a $120k horse there and three relatives chip in to get this horse and I have to pay cash at the time of sale. There is NO law saying I can't have that cash on me. None. No where.

let this be a lesson to all...if you're on the level in your life keep your money in the bank and use checks like other "on the level" folks in this country do.

I am an "on the level" folk and I see no problem in dealing in cash. The only people that have a problem with cash are on the government payroll because they want every transaction traced, docuemnted and taxed.

I'm not saying this guy is guilty or innocent of anything. From the brief details in the article, he wasn't charged, arrest or convicted of anything. BUT, the government will take your money/assests just in case you are guilty, and besides we need the cash.

Innocent until proven guilty. This guy was not proven guilty. HE WASN'T EVEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

[little jeremiah]

I saw this article and I was wondering "moral absolutes" as well. Kind of, actually most things could qualify!

I was beyond disgusted.

[metmom]

Yeah, most things are moral is one respect or another. This just seemed to be over the line. What the police did in seizing his money with no cause, was immoral. So what is the dollar amount that citizens in the US can carry without fear of it being seized? Whatever the local law enforcement decides it should be? What if you're $20 over? Or under? The under amount could just as easily be the illegal one while the over could be legal.

I have my suspicions about the guy. It could be he was used as a cover because of his clean record, nevertheless, that does not give the police the right to seize the money without any just cause. If they can't demonstrate guilt, he should get it back, with interest and legal fees reimbursed, IMO. If they want to watch the guy and nail him when they had a solid case, OK. But there is too much of a risk of doing it to a legitimate citizen, unlikely as it seems, to justify this kind of behavior.

[thoughtomator]

How exactly does an inanimate object commit a crime?

I'd break out the roflcopter but it ain't a laughing matter.

[supercat]

But there is too much of a risk of doing it to a legitimate citizen, unlikely as it seems, to justify this kind of behavior.

What do you mean "risk"? Real drug dealers shoot back. Targeting honest citizens is just as profitable and much safer.

[supercat]

How can his assets be guilty if HE isn't?

And his does the police action not deprive him, the person, of his property? The Constitution wasn't written to protect property--it was written to protect people from thieves like those who conspired to steal Mr. Gonzoles' money.

[thoughtomator]

Carrying money, no matter how much, is not illegal. So they made the money itself the criminal in order to take it! From now on I'm going to discard the term "dollars" and do all my business in "felons".



I can't believe I paid eight felons for a couple of burgers and a large freedom fries this evening!

[Cheburashka]

Civil forfeiture. I don't write the laws. I don't justify them. For a short explanation, go here, for longer find it on Google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

[Cheburashka]

Ah, yes, Yoda's love life.

A subject for George Lucas to cover in Star Wars VII.

[Cheburashka]

This has been done since the founding of the American Republic as a method of legal action against smugglers.

You are a foreigner. You wish to smuggle (whatever) into the United States in contravention of the laws of the United States. You buy a boat. You hire a crew to operate the boat while you stay safely remain in a foreign country outside the reach of American law. Your boat and crew are captured while smuggling. The crew goes to prison or whatever. What happens to the boat? Without the legal concept the boat cannot be seized - you have ownership rights. YOU cannot be arrested because you are in a foreign land and the law cannot get at you. So you hire an American lawyer to sue to get your boat back.

The concept that the boat itself has committed a felony is the way the law gets around the necessity of turning the boat over to your lawyers, who of course will return it to you, the criminal. If you want the boat back, come to the U.S. and sue. And place yourself where the authorities can arrest you for your crime. Of course you won't, you're not stupid.

This makes sense in a case where the real perpetrator of the criminal acts cannot be brought into court. It is an abuse when it is applied to the assets of a man who is in the United States and against whom criminal proceedings can be brought. The concept has been thoroughly twisted and is a violation of due process.

[BigSkyFreeper]

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.

Right, like I said, there's probably more to this story than meets the eye.

[supercat]

Your boat and crew are captured while smuggling. The crew goes to prison or whatever. What happens to the boat? Without the legal concept the boat cannot be seized - you have ownership rights.

If the owner of the boat was in any way involved with the smuggling operations, then issue him notice that he has been charged with crimes. If he fails to respond, try him in absentia (with the caveat that if he later shows he did not have reasonable opportunity to respond, that would be basis for de novo appeal). If the owner of the boat is found guilty of using it for criminal purposes, then seize the boat.

If there is not enough evidence to show that the owner of the boat was involved with its illegal use, then there is no basis for taking it.