Driving With Money is a Crime: Federal Appeals Court

[750rider]

It just gets better & better.

Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

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)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp

fk'n rediculous!!

and in case you missed it:
http://forums.sportbikes.net/forums/...d.php?t=338070

[malik ross]

good find. one more reason for me to turn the throttle instead of pulling over. they may find a black man not in jail reason enough to seize my possesions.

[hybrid]

one more step towards a police state and it shows you how much the government wants you to not use cash for anything. They want you to use electronic money so they can monitor your spending habits.

This is one more nail in the coffin against america being "free".

I wonder how that doesnt infringe on his 4th ammendment rights.

[051000RR]

They can pry my money out of my cold dead fingers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[littlec]

So wait did the guy get the money back? The judge seemed to be on the non-english speaking guys side and said there was no reason the money had to do with drugs.

[jim schmidt]

I can't imagine that even our current right-wing Supremes would uphold this one.

[Azylum]

i agree with the court. who in the hell drives around in a rented car (or in any car for that matter) with 125k in cash? if it were me, bells would have gone off and i would have siezed the cash as well, especially after the dog started barking. some of you are making it seem as if the cops are gonna take the twenty in your wallet, lol. and im sorry to say, that story is weak. there may be no evidence to suggest other wise, but they could have come up with something better than that.

[flash84x]

i agree that carrying that kind of money in that situation is very suspicious and should call for an investigation, but come on... reasonable doubt anyone? i didnt pick up if he got his money back but it sure as hell sounds like he should have

[JaiBird]

I agree with the Judge on this one, and I'd say the H/M got his money back. There were no signs of any type of narcotic, para., and especially no criminal history of narcotic infractions.

Though I would have loved to have seized the money for our drug fund, I think the LEO's were hoping the dog hitting on the stash was enough to seize it.

Being an agent myself, I would have seized the money, only if illegal narcotics(enough for resale, and yes, this includes weed), or similar were present at the time of stop. I will keep my opinion of the arresting/seizing officer's actions to myself at this point. I'll just say I don't agree with what was done, without some sort of crime or criminal intent present.

[Budo]

Even then... if they cannot prove anything then they cannot prove anything. The court system is not supposed to be built on "assumptions."

[JaiBird]

I've seized a whole lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$ this year. And I would have seized it too, if there were any type of narcotic infraction. (Just a sniff from the dog doesn't fly with me. That gives me enough probable cause to search, and even take apart the car. But unless illegal narcotics were found, I wouldn't have seized it.

[Wakey]

You can read the courts ruling or you can react to the headline on a knee jerk website and just read what they quoted for you.

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

[Wakey]

And I'm not calling anyone out, it's just apparent to me a few people didn't read the ruling, just the websites offering and the first sentence is a crock of shat..

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation.

The court said nothing of the sort..

[Fabian]

Originally Posted by 051000RR

They can pry my money out of my cold dead fingers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They will!!!

[JaiBird]

I now read it... and just what I thought would happen, did happen. Now, if they (LEO) would have found as little as, 2X (dime bags of marijuana), or 3 grams of cocaine. They (the H/Ms) could have kissed their $$ goodbye.