Marijuana.com

Swabeky

This is really, really scary, he lost his life savings just because of suspicion, no evidence at all.

 

1tokeovertheline

I'm not a cop, but this sounds pretty reasonable to me. I think the cop was doing is job and doing it well. It is up to the courts to decide the next course of action.

Buzzby

There was no evidence of any crime having been or being committed. Gonzolez was neither charged nor convicted of any crime. Rental vehicles, by their very nature, are driven by different people all the time, so the dog's alert without finding anything meant nothing.

Or beating the house in Vegas. Or not trusting banks. Or wanting to buy a truck, cash in hand...

I'd say possession of a large amount of cash provides some suspicion that a crime might have been committed, not 'strong evidence'. In the absence of other evidence it remains only a suspicion. Are we to have our property confiscated simply because someone finds our behavior "suspicious"? Is the NORML bumper sticker on my truck 'strong evidence' that I'm in possession of marijuana? If a dog alerts on my truck but nothing is found, should my truck be confiscated?

This is bullshit. If it goes to the Supreme Court and is not struck down I will lose what little confidence I still have in our judicial system. We are supposed to be a society ruled by our Constitution and laws, not by the whims of public servants.

This Spring I was pulled over for going 5 mph over the limit on I-70 in Missouri. Other vehicles were passing me left and right. Why was I really pulled over? I was driving a rental vehicle with Colorado plates. It was harassment, pure and simple. The vehicle was searched, my stash was discovered, and nothing was said! The officers apologized for the inconvenience and let me go. My guess is that they knew the search was illegal (no reason for suspicion, no consent, forced to wait for a dog to arrive beyond the time needed for a speeding stop) or they were simply looking for bigger fish. I wonder what would have happened had I been Hispanic, didn't speak good English, or didn't know my Constitutional rights?

__________________

1tokeovertheline

Buzzby,
Read the items I put in bold print. The same ones I put in bold print the last time. He was stopped for speeding. Rental car not in his name. 124,700 dollars cash in a cooler. Drug dog on alert. Though there wasn't any "crime" as you say. It was VERY suspicious and I believe the cop did a good job. The courts decide if he was guilty of a crime. That is what I was saying. The cop did his job.

Buzzby

The courts didn't decide to confiscate Gonzolez's money. The state trooper did. Was there any evidence that a crime had been committed? No. Did a lower court find that this was unreasonable? Yes. The question is, why did the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals think it was reasonable?

The trooper was doing his job only if you consider it's a LEO's job to be stealing your property because he thinks you might have committed a crime.

 

1tokeovertheline

I guess you are losing your patience, I know I am. Read my fucking reply ONE MORE TIME. I didn't say there was a crime committed. You keep saying "whats the crime , what's the crime?? I said it was suspicious and the cop had every reason and the law to do what he did. So maybe the law IS wrong. Lot's of them are. Don't be so friggin' radical all the time. Read what I wrote, not what you think it says. I know you don't like to be wrong, but IN MY OPINION you are in this case. To answer your last question about why did the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals think it was reasonable. I don't have a friggin' clue. You tell me then we will both know. You got all the answers and wouldn't agree with mine anyhow. Soooo tell me. Why??

PS
The other day you told someone if you wanted to post the whole story you would have. Well I posted more of the story and now I agree even MORE the cop had a reason for the actions he took.

More info from the article:

.

Abomonog

Actually the real question is, was there any evidence of a crime at all.

The dog alerted to something in the car....

That is your evedence.
Only problem is that dogs will alert to a Big Mac wrapper and the cops know this. The most successfull runners always keep lots of fast food wrappers cluttered in their cars. (Often with half eaten burgers in them) This causes the dog to go ape half a mile away from the car (not really but hound owners know what I mean). One look inside and the cop know a dog is useless. However, if someone has eaten recently in a clean car the cop can use the extra attention the dog is going to give the food smell to say te dog has "alerted" to drugs.


MY money says the dog alerted to the guys lunch leftovers.

But that doesn't matter one bit as no drugs were found.

If the police still thought they were investigating a crime then they would have been obliged to check out our suspects story. Probably would have been a matter of a simple phone call to the alledged truck seller. But there is no indication that such an investigation was made. On top of it the investigators
showed no evidence refuting the suspects story. So the rental car was not in his name. I often haul One-way truckloads cross country and drive rentals back. None of these rentals have ever been in my name.

The suspects rights were violated. there is no solid basis for suspicion here.
Certainly no basis for taking his money.

__________________
It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack!

1tokeovertheline

Read my PS it contains more of the story. Apparently they did do an investigation.

I was a truck driver for 13 years and we would often rent U-hauls. I would have to be designated as the driver. 2 weeks ago my son's girlfriend moved in with him. They rented a U-haul. They asked who was driving the truck and they told him I was. They need my NYS drivers ID# and I was listed as the designated driver. The owner of the franchise said if someone else drove the truck to make sure I was riding with them. If pulled over by the cops and someone else besides the designated driver was driving, the truck would be considered stolen. He advised that I do all the driving unless there were alternate drivers listed. He stated that was U-haul policy. Maybe he was lying to me, but I don't see why.
So we have two different stories right here. Explain that one.

Todd2869

1Toke,

I cannot agree with you that you believe that the cops did the right thing. There was no proof of a crime. Not being the designated driver does not mean they have the right to confiscate money.

In my job I have asked to carry thousands of $$ in rental cars. If the guy who rented the car before me just transported 200lbs of marijuana the car would still cause the dog to alert and my employers money would be taken even though there were no drugs in the car.

The seizure laws in this country were enacted to go after the "Big guys". they were not enacted to take every last piece of property the police come across.

Your ideas will change if you ever have your car stolen from you because a dog alerts on it and you happen to have just went to the bank and removed cash for a reason besides drugs.

If I remember properly(I could be wrong on the location) this is the same area where the cops were investigated for taking money and not reporting it and keeping it for themselves.

1tokeovertheline

That is OK that you disagree. I don't mind and I haven't changed my mind.