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)

[Marius3188]

Alot of the farmers I know still make large purchases with cash. It would not surprise me for someone to buy a tractor or such with cash.

BTW, it seems to me that the Gov't is conditioning people like yourself and many others to avoid using cash. It is our legal tender and there shouldn't be anything illegal or wrong with having lots of it.

[Gabz]

The WOD has gone too far.

Perfect summation.

[Tancred]

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

It's not "nuff said" because if you ran a business where you sold commercial trucks that cost in the neighborhood of $100 grand to anyone who came in with a cooler full of cash the odds are that you would be dealing with criminals, gangsters, or persons who otherwise acquired that kind of cash by illegitimate means. I find it very hard to believe that anyone who ran a dealership would finalize a deal like that without telling the buyer to go to a bank first. You just would not want to accept that amount of cash no matter what was printed on the bills.

Please, seriously, this is the real world, not some exercise in theoretical absolutisms. I stand by my assertion that there is something very suspicious with the behavior of the defendants, and likewise anyone who would deal with them with that amount of cash.

My father ran a yacht brokerage (same idea as real estate, but with boats). Nobody would come into his office with a duffel bag full of cash and want to buy a boat. The idea is ridiculous, and anyone doing that would be shown to the door.

[PhiKapMom]

It may be wrong to you but it was caused by money laundering which is against the law. You can put over $10,000 in the bank -- you just have to explain where it came from which I have no problem.

[eastforker]

Other than the two parties concerned, it realy is not anybody elses bussiness.Cash is legal to own! At what amount do you think the government should get involved? Too some a $100 is a lot of cash, to others $10,000 is mere pocket change.

[Between the Lines]

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

What we think or feel is unimportant. Proof is what is needed.

[eastforker]

Yup, the guvmint needs their share of the booty don't they.

[Myrddin]

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.

Possibly, but not with the same self serving intent as with a law enforcement agency. Law enforcement stands to put that money in their own pockets (budget) by confiscation of money claimed to be "drug money". There is a definite conflict of interest built into the law. Such confiscation should be limited to cases where a felony conviction is obtained and the trial includes incontrovertable evidence that the money was derived from the sale of illegal drugs. As observed by another post, confiscations routinely occur in cases where no charges are ever filed. The standard of proof is too lax. It tramples all over personal property rights without due process of law.

[DB]

Actually I don't think it is that unusual.

Illegals in particular don't use banks and deal in cash. That way they avoid the IRS and INS. If several families were pooling their resources to purchase a large refrigeration truck for a new business it wouldn't be that strange they'd try to use cash.

These types of people often buy cars with cash.

[Gabz]

While I agree with you there is something suspicion going on here, I have to say that any businessman that refuses a cash sale, regardless of the product, should not be in business.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

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

Can you say: "illegal immigration" ???

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Illegals in particular don't use banks and deal in cash. That way they avoid the IRS and INS.

ding, ding, ding.... "We have a new contestant on the Price is Right!

[Gabz]

So do I, and I was born here, as were my parents and maternal grandparents.

So are you saying ANYONE that uses cash to make large purchases are suspect of something illegal?

[Between the Lines]

I doubt that this was a dealership but instead an individual selling a truck. Gonzoles said that he flew to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. If it had been a dealership there would have been more than one truck.

Most dealerships will not accept over $9000 cash. If you want to buy a vehicle without credit you will usually have to pay with a combination of check, cash and multiple cashier checks all less than $9000 each.

[FreedomCalls]

From the dissent by Judge Lay:

LAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. Although the circumstantial evidence offered by the government provides some indication that the money seized in this case may be related to criminal activity, I cannot agree that the government has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the requisite substantial connection between the currency and a controlled substance offense. 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. 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. 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. See United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060.00, 39 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[A] mere suspicion of illegal activity is not enough to establish . . . that the money was connected to drugs.”).

... Here, the only evidence linking the seized money to illegal drug activity is a canine sniff that alerted officers to the presence of narcotics on the currency itself and the exterior of the rear passenger side of the rental car where the currency was discovered. However, as Justice Souter recently recognized, a large percentage of currency presently in circulation contains trace amounts of narcotics. ...

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. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

How many illegals can they fit into a refrigeration truck and smuggle them across the border in that heat?

[Gabz]

BS - just because someone uses cash does NOT mean they are doing anything wrong.

I'm up a creek without the proverbial paddle if that is how we are going to start operting here.

[Sgt.Po-Po]

Go read the decision.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/moneyseize.pdf

Nobody flies to Chicago to buy a truck, with $124,000 in cash.

Anyone starting a business needs records and cash don't leave records.

Gonzalez was an idiot and got caught.

and No, most money will not peak a dog's interest.
Money packed in bags that used to contain drugs, peaks a dog's interest.

[DB]

That's not true.

I bought a $34k car with a single personal check.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I have to say that any businessman that refuses a cash sale, regardless of the product, should not be in business.

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'll be in the Fortune 500 in no time at all...