Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

The Newspaper ^ | Staff

[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)

[sitetest]

Satire alert.

[Trust but Verify]

Please do tell us how GWB is responsible for a court ruling.

[sitetest]

I take it back.

As unbelievable as this reads, I found it at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals website:

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/tmp/053295.html

Yikes.

[longtermmemmory]

I think there is more to this case than is in the MSM story. Remeber repoters are complete idiots when it comes to legal reporting. This is especially true with lawyers who are reporters.

That said.

I have always suspected dogs will sit on command by the police officer. Dog "sniffs" should be taped WITH THE HANDER IN CLEAR SIGHT

[Creightongrad]

Judge Donald P. Lay is a liberal democrat appointed by a Dem President. And he's correct in this case.

[JeffAtlanta]

Folks, if you just take the time to look at the actual decision itself, you will find that it supports my initial suspicions that these guys were up to no good. I think that the court made the right decision on this one.

Then why wasn't he convicted of a drug related crime?

[mugs99]

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.

ROFL!
We don't need no stinking Constitution...We have barking dogs!
.

[wireman]

it supports my initial suspicions that these guys were up to no good

So when somebody suspects (but can't even begin to prove) that you're up to no good, they can take all of your money too?

Beyond a reasonable doubt and a jury of one's peers seems to be missing here.

All this is is a welfare program for law enforcement agencies.

[AlexandriaDuke]

Illegals in particular don't use banks and deal in cash.

Not just illegals. A lot of Asian immigrants just won't trust banks.

[RobRoy]

Taking drugs is just stupid.

The war on drugs is MORE STUPID! (or is it more stupider...)

As an american citizen, I find this verdict extremely insulting.

[RobRoy]

Hate crimes are, literally, thought crimes.

[pageonetoo]

But it is extremely rude to make personal attacks...

Yep! It wasn't inadverdant... I posted my thoughts. You are free to do the same! Welcome to America.

[TKDietz]

Just because there are some "suspicious circumstances" does not mean the person was involved with drug activity. I did read the case, and saw where the court said that a dog alerting to a pile of money that had been in a rental vehicle was "strong evidence" of drug activity. I say that's a bunch of bull manure. Those dogs alert all the time when there are no drugs present at all and rental cars have probably all had drugs in them at one point or another. People who think forfeitures without good evidence of drug activity are just fine will sing a different tune the day they have a couple of grand with them they had just earned or whatever and law enforcement seizes it. That happens all the time. They'll take people's rent money, the proceeds from a check they've just cashed, and so on. Then these people have to hire lawyers and pretty much prove that none of the money was from a drug transaction or intended to be used for a drug transaction. Most don't have the resources to fight these cases, and the easier we make it for law enforcement to seize our money without good reason the more people out there who will get screwed. Is it so much to ask that the government have to present some substantial evidence to prove their case before they deprive us of our property? Whether these people in this case were involved with drugs or not isn't so important. What matters is that the government should have to prove their case in order to succeed on a forfeiture action or else there will be innocent people being robbed of their money all the time by law enforcement. If we don't hold them to their burden of proof in every case then innocent people will suffer.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

So Ahmed, Abdul and Vaheed offer you a garbage bag full of cash for an agricultural helicopter that disperses pesticides; you sell no questions asked?

You take their money first, then give the FBI a call.

[Myrddin]

Those were not cash transactions.

They came directly from my checking account. It wasn't funded by a loan from a bank or a lending institution. The only thing not "cash" about it was the absence of paper money. You don't consider a transaction paid from your checking account to be a cash transaction?

[Myrddin]

The cash in my checking account didn't appear out of thin air. The second house was purchased with my state and federal tax refunds. I prefer to invest those funds back into a money making enterprise rather than blow it on unnecessary luxuries. Paying off my home mortgage was accomplished by 10 years of careful investing in company stock programs. The payoff occurred in 2002. The stock value today is closing in on the 2002 value. None of that stock is involved in my retirement funds. Those are completely separate.

[TKDietz]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt and a jury of one's peers seems to be missing here."

There is no "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof required in these cases. These are civil actions and must be proved only by a "preponderance of the evidence." In my state at least if the person from whom the monies were seized happened to have joint, some prescription meds for which he did not have a prescription, or any other illegal drugs anywhere in the vicinity of the cash seized, the burden of proof shifts to him. The government will have to prove nothing else. He must then prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the money didn't come from a drug transaction or that he didn't intend to buy any drugs with it or otherwise help facilitate any drug transaction with it. It's very difficult to prove a negative. This guy in the case that was the subject of this article didn't even have any drugs though so the burden of proof was on the government. Obviously the Eighth Circuit doesn't think there really needs to be any evidence to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard when it comes to forfeiting money. It's a good thing this guy didn't own that car or he probably would have lost that too.

[elkfersupper]

The lesson here is to put large sums of money in a bank account and use a wire transfer

Actually, that attracts their attention also.

Any cash transaction above $9,999.99 gets scrutinized.Some banks have set a lower threshold. As low as $3,000.

[Dog Gone]

Outrageous decision.

[Myrddin]

Attracting attention and scrutiny is fine if the transaction is perfectly legitimate. In most cases there is no further action. I suspect the "money trail" makes a big difference in the behavior after a transfer is flagged. A hand carried cash deposit has an uncertain origin. In my case the origin was a wire transfer from federal and state governments and a stock brokerage. Outbound disbursals were to mortgage lenders.