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)
You are correct. No matter how much some on this thread think it smells that he was in possession of $124,700, the fact is that he was never charged with a crime. So he was never tried and convicted of one. Yet his assets were confiscated.
About a year ago there was a lady $46,950 taken by the cops at Boston Logan Airport. She was on her way to have breast enhancement surgery, for which she was going to pay cash. Again, no crime charged, no trial, no conviction.
Strange but true: The law gets around the inconvenience of charging the individual by charging the asset. That's why the suit in this thread was entitled "US v. $124,700". It's as crooked, nonsensical and tyrranical a concept as exists anywhere in law.
In these cases you can sue to recover your confiscated assets. Of course, if your attorney fees stack up into six figures, that's your tough luck. And, as this truck-shopper has shown in the current suit, being NOT charged with any crime is no defense. Not when a judge can still say "I still think he had something to do with drugs." There is no presumption of innocence. Forget about a trial by peers or the right to face your accuser or the least shred of habeus corpus. There is no burden of proof, no right to due process. And I'm here to tell you that having tens of thousands of dollars taken from you is as good as a guilty verdict.
Unfortunately, there are some on this thread who would say, "Well if you can sue to get your assets back and you don't, well that must be an admission of guilt." How much of the breast-enhancement lady's $47k would be left, assuming she won? How much is Gonzolez in the hole now, and no closer to getting his $124,700 back?
(There's something of a precedent in tax law. In that, the burden of proof is on the accused.)
I don't care what a politician's party is: the guy who stands up and says he'll get legislation passed to do away with asset forfeiture gets my vote. Asset forfeiture has no place in America.
You may want to talk to 8 Marines sitting in the brig at Camp Pendleton about that.
It is time for CONgress to do their job and conduct some oversite on these runaway judicial tyrants.
I think he means this:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
The opposite of progress is regress.
So what? Suspicious behavior isn't grounds for forfeiture. You have to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a substantial connection between the money and a controlled substance offense. That's the legal standard. Suspiciousness isn't enough. Maybe the guy's telling the truth. Or maybe he was selling stolen goods. Who knows? There's certainly no evidence that drugs were involved in any way.
At most, the evidence presented suggests the money seized may have been involved in some illegal activity – activity that is incapable of being ascertained on the record before us.Judge Lay is absolutely right.
Did you get a load of the sniff test the officer did? He put the defendant's cash (all of it) up against 7 bills collected from various officers. 7 bills vs 7 *stacks* of bills. Gee, guess which pile the dog picked? LOL.
You think the guy flew to Chicago with $124,000 worth of drugs, on a post-911 flight, and then sold the drugs in Chicago, or what?
The money wasn't packed in bags. It was wrapped in foil. Regardless, do dealers normally keep the packaging after they make a drug delivery?
#%@&!
So now it is officially confirmed, anyone who carries cash is an instant criminal, and their assets subject to seizure on the flimsiest of pretext, or really none at all!
Oh, I am SO DAMN GLAD we have a "conservative" congress, president, and SCOTUS! (Yes, that SARC!)
So which one of them is going to stand up for the bill of rights and common sense in order to put a stop to this "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" outrage?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yep, that's what I thought, NONE OF THEM!
It's finally clear, "Neo-Conservative" is code for Neo-Fascist!
My tag-line remains unchanged, I remain proudly PALEO.
At the closing of the deal the woman went to the back of her trunk to pull out the suitcases of cash to pay for it in whole. The realtor promptly got her (and the cash) to a bank.
I don't know about China, but in Japan, large cash transactions are not unusual -- but checks are.
WOD?
Try War On Freedom!
Our constitution means NOTHING any more, as illustrated by all the feculent unconstitutional "Gun Control" laws people meekly tolerate, this garbage, varied other laws that put the burden of proof on the accused (Hello IRS!), Law Enforcement having become a revenue stream,......... ARGHH!
More freedom in China Alert. Really. No problem carrying 100,000 in cash to buy a piece of equipment, a car or whatever. You can see large cash transactions taking place frequently. Definately not unheard of to but a truck with cash.
Can you cite an actual source for that quote, or are you just expressing what appears to be the current "Neo-Conservative" sentiment?
"Think" is not PROOF!
I "think" the guy and his partners may have been illegals, operating, or intending to operate, an unlicensed business.
I "think" that would explain their doing business in cash.
What I "think" is also not proof of any criminal activity.
I Feel that if he were proven to be an illegal the cash should be confiscated upon his conviction, as it would then have a connection to proven illegal activity.
Taking anyone's cash without proving a crime is mere theft, just because cops and courts are the ones stealing does not excuse it.
When we let the government tell us we were not capable of deciding for ourselves what we can put in to our own bodies, that's when.
I was in the automobile business for years. It was not unusual at all to have people bring in $30,000 or $40,000 in cash to buy a car 15 years ago.
The dealer (or anyone involved in such a deal) is prohibited from telling a customer to bring a check once they know that much cash is involved. The feds can (and have) charged dealerships with 'structuring' a deal to avoid reporting requirements.
I don't care if this man is involved in drugs. Suspicion is not good enough reason to consfiscate someone's property.
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.