Skip to comments.Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime
Posted on 08/20/2006 8:57:44 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruling says police may seize cash from motorists even in the absence of any evidence that a crime has been committed.
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.
Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.
"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of drug use or distribution."
"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.
The full text of the ruling is available in a 36k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: US v. $124,700 (US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8/19/2006)
George III looks better every day. We seem to have traded one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away.
If as stated, this is pure BS! As a matter of fact, I'd prefer no confiscations unless accompanied by a relevant conviction. The WOD has gone too far.
This decision is blatantly wrong.
Does it raise suspicion carrying that kind of cash? Yes. Does it justify the government seizing it? No way in hell. Suspicion is not guilt!
This law has become so abused. When did Judges start ruling on feelings instead of facts?
What a crock.
Just a note: Would it be possible to amass $100,000 of cash without some drug residue being on some of the bills. Isn't that physically impossible?
I sure hope I never get a drugsniffing dog sic'd onto my wallet after I've made an ATM withdrawl.
The police department doing the confiscating gets to keep the money for operating expenses. That's part of the problem too.
When did the first group of humans select one amongst them to settle disputes???
Now, now -- they don't just rule on feelings, they also bring in penumbras and emanations.
IIRC at one time there was a study in which several bills from several different banks in the Miami area were tested for drugs.
Something like 60% of them tested positive for drug residue.
I can't find a source right now but I read once that upwards of 90% of all U.S. currency is tainted with drug residue.
No, it isn't. One tainted dollar bill that makes it's way into an ATM has the potential to taint hundreds of bills. I hears a stat once that said that a substantial amount of the US monetary supply is tainted.
Absolutely and utterly ridiculous. This judge should be impeached and exiled. The failed war on some drugs zealots must be stopped before they shred our entire Constitution.
The Ninth Circuit must be contagious.
The lesson here is to put large sums of money in a bank account and use a wire transfer when the appropriate time comes to transfer it to the intended party. If you do otherwise, the government has decided you are a drug dealer and will confiscate your personal property with no other proof required.
'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, Its just a goddamned piece of paper!' G.W. Bush
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.