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)
I'm late into this, for the time being I'm cube bound; but I also took time to read the link...
Tancred not only needs some support here, but he (she?)'s also right.
I filled an 8.5 by 11 with reasons Senor what's it's name is guilty:
Mostly because he is a lying SOB from the start...The rental, his record, and probably his immigration status (oddly not mentioned).
One court determined his lines to be "consistent" but ignored "stupid", or "unlikely", or "trading on a stereotype", or a dozen other rational responses to the idea of three illiterate (might I suggest illegal?) immigrants pooling $127 grand, to buy a blind truck from a 'friend of a friend' who'd already sold it, who also bought a one way airline ticket (cash?) - but returned by (probably more expensive) rental car that was rented by a third party no one could name, and who traded a small carry on bag full of tin foil wrapped cash (that got through security) for an ice chest full of said cash on the back seat....and alerted a drug sniffing dog that ignored a control sample drawn from several sources(!)
Sorry folks, I oppose forfeiture under many conditions, I especially oppose 'imminent domain' for frivolous purposes:
this clown is guilty, the money is dirty, and I wonder where his body is going to be found after this all cools down.
Why wasn't he charged with anything?
Read up - the whole issue is based on trial procedings: Trial = "charged with something".
Fair enough, I'm just tired of everyone blaming bush for everything...and I thought you were making a snide comparison since so many DUer types call bush king george.
And I'm hardly a bushbot...I only voted for him to vote against Kerry.
Hey, Bob, do you stil believe we can "ensure" law enforcement's honesty with a simple test when a handful of money is in their fist and "no questions will be asked" is the predominate thought?
Your final recourse is simply "to have them arrested". That ends it all, in your book, doesn't it.
Most would label that as reactive, not proactive. The root of the problem still exists and an arrest or two when someone is finally caught with their hand in the cookie jar is not taking care of the problems of police corruption.
I'm amazed that you think the burden of proof is on the citizen rather than the government. It is generally very difficult to prove a negative. Prove you didn't drive recklessly yesterday. Prove you didn't steal the $10 in your wallet from an unnamed elementary school child at an unspecified date.
Lovely. So why isn't he in jail?
Of what?
Is it illegal to possess US currency in amounts larger than some set limit? How much cash can one have before it becomes criminal?
Well, you drive or walk around with 120K cash with no bank records, 1099, etc. Police officer: Now where did that cash come from? Suspect: It is mine? Officer, any proof? Suspect: Take my word. Yep.
You got it. Some have to travel back to a casino 5 plus times to cash in chips to avoid that crap.
Now just having money is a crime? What is the limit of money you are allowed to carry without it being subject to confiscation? Did the judge rule on that? Another wonderful "unintended consequence" of the War on Drugs (i.e. war on citizens rights). I'm sure taking this money away will keep some kid from od'ing tonight, eh???
I thought we were supposed to be innocent till proven guilty...
He had sworn testimony of his friends who pooled the money to purchase the truck.
And did they provide details of where the money came from?
Irrelevant. You don't have to prove you did not commit a crime. The government must prove that you did commit a crime.
With funds being used for drugs and terror, I would think anyone walking or much less riding around with 120 plus K would be a suspect. Now prove that cash is yours. I believe that is reasonable. I have been in that spot with 1/3 the cash. If it is honest cash it is easy to trace. I had no problems on the scene. Did they ever hear of cashiers checks or electronic funds transfers?
With funds being used for drugs and terror, I would think anyone walking or much less riding around with 120 plus K would be a suspect. Now prove that cash is yours. I believe that is reasonable. I have been in that spot with 1/3 the cash. If it is honest cash it is easy to trace.
In a criminal trial, yes. This wasn't a criminal trial. He wasn't being charged with a crime. His freedom wasn't at stake.
This was a civil asset forfeiture case against the money, not against Mr. Drug Dealer. You kind of get a hint of that by the title of the case: ""United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency".
In civil asset forfeiture cases, all that's needed for a guilt verdict is "preponderance of the evidence".
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.