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)

[Mind-numbed Robot]

When did Judges start ruling on feelings instead of facts?

When Congress passed hate crime laws, which are nothng but feelings which have become criminal. I know that is not the same as the feelings of the judge but that is part of the same legal confusion.

[ZULU]

Washington, Sam Adams, Paul Revere, etc, had a perfect response to this kind of high-handed dealing.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!' G.W. Bush

He doesn't sit on the 8th circuit court. Take the BDS elsewhere.

[an amused spectator]

The Revenue Act of 1764, also known as the Sugar Act, was the first tax on the American colonies imposed by the British Parliament. Its purpose was to raise revenue through the colonial customs service and to give customs agents more power and latitude with respect to executing seizures and enforcing customs law. That the Act came from an external body rather than a colonial legislature alarmed a handful of colonial leaders in Boston who held that the Act violated their “British privileges”. Their principle complaint was against taxation without representation. Just as important, however, were the Act’s profound implications for the colonial judicial system, for the Revenue Act of 1764 allowed British officers to try colonists who violated the new duties at a new Vice-Admiralty court in Halifax, Nova Scotia, thus depriving the colonists of their right to trial by a jury of their peers. The seriousness of this was not lost on the Massuchusetts Legislature: “The extension of the powers of the courts of vice-admiralty has, so far as the jurisdiction of the said courts hath been extended, deprived the colonies of one of the most valuable of English liberties, trials by juries” (Petition from the Massachusetts Legislature to the House of Commons, 3 November 1764). The Act also established new trial procedures which essentially freed customs officers from all responsibility and from effective civil suits for damages in colonial courts. While a handful of colonial leaders recognized the grave implications of the Revenue Act, it was not until news of the Stamp Act reached the colonies that the seeds of rebellion were planted in the hearts and minds of the broader public.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

The lesson here is to put large sums of money in a bank account ...

When more than $10,000 in cash is either put in or taken out of a bank or other financial institution it must be reported to the government, possibly leading to the same results.

[Tancred]

Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business.

Be that as it may, I find it hard to believe that they are telling the truth. How can they expect to run a business without first starting with a bank account, a cashier's check, anything but over $100 grand in a cooler? Who the heck buys a commercial truck with cash in the first place? We can all understand a few thousand in cash for a used car, but who makes deals like this in cash? Who would accept that kind of money in exchange for a truck anyway?

I think there is more going on here than is presented in this article.

[jiggyboy]

"Don't leave your country without it!"

[Mind-numbed Robot]

'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!' G.W. Bush

Never heard or read anything remotely similar. Source, other than delusion?

[eastforker]

Look at a bill, THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, nuff said!!

[ExSES]

I think there is more going on here than is presented in this article.

If the "Victim" was named John Smith..., the media would have no reason to print the story!

[PhiKapMom]

It has nothing to do with Pres Bush -- get a life!

[Trajan88]

Re: "Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime"

The next thing on the list: "Having Money in a 401(k)/Roth IRA is a Crime." I won't be surprised once Social Security is a vapor of its present form in a couple generations.

[PhiKapMom]

I think there is a lot more going on here as well. You don't make a cash transaction to buy a truck with that amount of money. Why not put it in a bank and get a cashier's check?

This smells.

[ThomasThomas]

Just a note: Would it be possible to amass $100,000 of cash without some drug



You can ask for new money that has never been in circulation. They would take it off the truck with a forklift where I worked in the past. The site has been repalced with a parking lot. Each brick is $20,000 you would only need 5.

[PhiKapMom]

If you put more than $10,000 in cash in the bank at one time, you have to account for where it came from because it is going to be reported. Anyone carrying $100,000 in cash is stupid IMHO!

[eastforker]

I don't care if he was a drug kingpin, no drugs when he was stopped, no other evidence, no confiscation, period.

[eastforker]

If you put more than $10,000 in cash in the bank at one time, you have to account for where it came from because it is going to be reported................... And that is just wrong.

[Thud]

ping

[Thud]

I suggest you read the decision.

[MissouriConservative]

"I sure hope I never get a drugsniffing dog sic'd onto my wallet after I've made an ATM withdrawl."

The state troopers could start a new way to earn cash...set up a half mile outside a casino and pull over winners, large amounts of cash....no arrests.....more doughnuts for the station.