Marijuana.com

Buzzby

Are Civil Liberties Collateral Damage In The War on Drugs?
Emil Steiner | Washington Post | 08/24/2006

Next time you go for a drive, you might wanna leave your wallet at home. Last Friday, the Eighth Circuit court of appeals ruled that police can confiscate large sums of cash from motorists without any other evidence of wrong doing. The decision in "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" found that "possession of a large sum of cash is strong evidence of a connection to drug activity." In this particular case a man neither accused or convicted of a crime lost his life savings because a Nebraska State Trooper found him suspicious. Despite how suspicious he may or may not have been, this precedent seemingly shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. It also reinforces American Express's long standing tag line: "Don't leave home without it."

Sources: United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency & Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime
_______________________________________________

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
The Newspaper | 08/19/2006

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)

 

TheNewGuy

Rediculous, this country is going to wind up like Mexico. You know what the difference between an arrest and freedom is in Mexico? $$$Money$$$. You get caught with drugs and you want to get off the hook? Pay the cop that caught you and get on your way. This is just inviting police corruption.

__________________
"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~P.J. O'Rourke

Toking Jedi

Funny that you should mention Mexico, TheNewGuy, 'cause you know what I noticed that's very interesting? The dude that got arrested is HISPANIC. This reeks of racism; would he have been "suspicious" if he were white? The cop responded to his race in a typical way. Sure, he probably wasn't thinking "damn spic", because racism is mostly subtler and more subconscious. But it's still there, and most often apparent in police. That's what I see here. Racism + lots of $$ = "drug" arrest.

__________________

troublemaker_42

Seizures of this type are commonplace here in South Dakota. Interstate 90 has become a major drug corridor ever since enforcement stepped up on other major routes. Two things seem to be quite common among both drug arrests and cash seizures however. 1. a high percentage of the stops involve vehicles with Washington license plates 2. Nearly all the suspects are Mexican or Oriental. You can draw two possible conclusions from the last bit of information. You can blame racism, or you can deduce that many Mexicans or Oriental people from Washington State are involved in the drug trade, or at least used as "mules" to transport drugs and cash from point A to point B. Considering that many of these stops produce actual drugs, the racism thing doesn't really wash, IMO. If they were simply finding large sums of cash on a regular basis, the racism thing might be a factor. However, marijuana, methamphetamine, and cocaine are routinely found as well. I'm not saying the cash seizures are right, ethically or legally, but considering the amount of drugs being carried by people fitting the same identical profile, its easy to see where they come to that conclusion from.

Murdock

The fact that you'd be an apologist for this on any level is absolutely chilling.

 

troublemaker_42

I'm not an "apologist" for anyone. What I said, and you quoted, so I'm assuming you read it, was that i understood (not agreed, not disagreed, and not "apologizing" for) how they make the connection. Where did I apologize? Where did I agree with the practice? I said I understood.....I understand slavery, I understand Nazi Germany, I understand Prohibition....but I damn sure don't agree or apologize for any of it. So, before you become "absolutely chilled" take the time to understand what you are responding to.

I really didn't think it was a stretch of the imagination to make a connection between large sums of cash and drug activity, when the same profile of individuals are caught with either drugs or large sums of cash on a regular basis, typically on the same road, typically driving vehciles with one certain state's license plate. I didn't once say i agreed with the practice of seizing the money, or with profiling people, for that matter. I didn't defend the practice in any way, nor do I sympathize with the police in this matter. Attempting to understand how the "other side" thinks is key in any conflict. Just because I made an attempt to do just that, given the facts at my disposal, doesn't make me an 'apologist" for anyone.

Murdock

I'm sure we all understand how the connection can be made.

You also did not say the practice was wrong either.

troublemaker_42

So, let me get this straight. Rather than attacking me for what I wrote, you attacked me for what I didn't? I

Buzzby

I agree that the possession of large amounts of cash under these circumstances would raise a suspicion of illegal activity. What seems completely contrary to the way things are supposed to be done in this country is that a suspicion is grounds to permanently confiscate someone's property. Whatever happened to the Fourth Amendment?* In the absence of any evidence of actual criminal activity a suspicion is just a suspicion.

If I have long hair and wear a Jimi Hendrix t-shirt, does that become grounds for the police to confiscate my home? This case implies that it does.

*Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

__________________

the dogsoldier

This kind of ruling smacks of political cronyism. Perhaps the justices in the 8th Circuit are angling for a place on a Supreme Court "short list". In any case, I certainly hope that this is appealed all the way to the Supremes. That is the only way we will find out if the Fourth Amendment still exists in this country.

Shameful ruling!!

__________________
Cheers,

The Dogsoldier