Driving With Money is a Crime

[Follow]

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.

US Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuitA 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.

Link, Link to the  full opinion.




Follow 

[Pat K]

Damn.

[Kat Kanning]

Government = pack of thieves.

[earthhaven]

Sadly this is not surprising

[BillyC]

Government = pack of thieves.

[Otosan]

A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash.

If I am not badly mistaken (and I could be) I heard that just about all money has traces of drugs on it.... ???

[Follow]

A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash.

If I am not badly mistaken (and I could be) I heard that just about all money has traces of drugs on it.... ???

You are correct.  Most money has traces of drugs on it.




Follow 

[firsty]

this doesnt really bother me since, despite my frequent drug use, i am rarely in possession of that much cash.

first they came for the entrepreneurs. or however you spell that.

first they came for the spellcheckers.

[Tom P]

You are correct.  Most money has traces of drugs on it.

Cool!  I'm going to take a stack of $1 bills and grind 'em up and smoke 'em.  After that, anyone want to meet me at Denny's when I get the munchies?

[Fluff and Stuff]

You are correct.  Most money has traces of drugs on it.

Cool!  I'm going to take a stack of $1 bills and grind 'em up and smoke 'em.  After that, anyone want to meet me at Denny's when I get the munchies?

You don't get the muchies from coke, you get less hungry.

[Kat Kanning]

Drinking Coke doesn't make me less hungry. 

[Tom P]

You are correct.  Most money has traces of drugs on it.

Cool!  I'm going to take a stack of $1 bills and grind 'em up and smoke 'em.  After that, anyone want to meet me at Denny's when I get the munchies?

You don't get the muchies from coke, you get less hungry.

Damn, well, I could stand to lose a few pounds...  but then again, that whole addiction to coke thing could become a problem...

[Tom P]

Drinking Coke doesn't make me less hungry. 

No no no, we are referring to smoking it.  I never knew you could drink it... well, I guess you could mix it with water.

...

Oh, wait you're talking about the icy cold beverage?!?!?  Oh..... 

[Pat McCotter]

I'll just continue chewing the leaves, thank you. Much nicer to the body, y'know.

[tracysaboe]

Bovard did a thing on that clear back in his book on Clinton Feeling your pain.

It's nothing new but it's good to see reports by others currently.

Tracy