http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/moneyseize.pdf
Here's a revealing quote from the decision itself:
Gonzolez purportedly carried $125,000 in cash with him on his flight, for the purpose of buying a truck that he had never seen, from a third party whom he had never met, with the help of a friend whose name he could not recall at trial.
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?
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.
"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."
Justice is a matter of process, not of outcomes (See the writings of Thomas Sowell). It matters not whether the court was right; what matters is that the procedures are unjust.
They should have to prove wrongdoing before confiscating private property. It doesn't matter how "sure" they are, if they can't get a guilty verdict, the guy walks.
Besides, the court's reasoning is faulty.
"for the purpose of buying a truck that he had never seen"
People do that all the time. They hear about something they might want to buy, and they go see it. What's odd about that?
"from a third party whom he had never met"
I don't think I've ever bought a used car from someone I knew. Again, what's odd about that?
"with the help of a friend whose name he could not recall at trial."
Just this morning, I needed to remember the name of someone I worked with from April to June of this year. Drew a complete blank. Still can't remember it.
It happens.
The standard for confiscation of private property should be much higher than it is.
Maybe he planned to buy a Lamborghini for his mistress. That he's telling an arguably unlikely story is not enough moral basis for taking his money.
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.