Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

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

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/rlc/docs...moneyseize.pdf

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp
>
> 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/rlc/docs...moneyseize.pdf


Next logical step is that anyone stopped for minor 'traffic' infractions
will have their bank accounts checked, and all bank accounts with a high
balance will be seized. -Dave

Mike T. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp
> >
> > 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/rlc/docs...moneyseize.pdf
>
>
> Next logical step is that anyone stopped for minor 'traffic' infractions
> will have their bank accounts checked, and all bank accounts with a high
> balance will be seized. -Dave

Sounds like the standard procedure for over-powering governments...do
anything possible to ensure that ONLY the government has money. First
taxes, then traffic citations, now cash seizures. Given that trend, I
project (not a real prediction, since trends occasionally change) that
in 10 to 20 years, the only people NOT rummaging through trash in an
attempt to survive will be government officials. Even that will
require government permit written in Arabic (can't leave out that oil
factor).

> wrote in message ups.com...
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp
> 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."

Wait and see what the Ninth Circuit says. That last claim is
absurd even at face value.

"EDM" > wrote in message
link.net...
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp
>> 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."
>
> Wait and see what the Ninth Circuit says. That last claim is
> absurd even at face value.

This has been going on for some time. Sums as low as a few thousand are
subject to seizure. I remember a story about a businessman who got $10K
seized at the airport. No arrest was made, no charges were ever filed.
The guy ran a plant nursery and was on a trip to buy from a distributor.
He didn't trust banks and always dealt in cash. He eventually got his
money back, thanks to the ACLU. Local law enforcement agencies get to
keep what they seize. It's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, but
it just goes to show what happens when people volunteer to give up their
rights.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:47:57 +0000, Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:

> This has been going on for some time. Sums as low as a few thousand are
> subject to seizure. <snip>

If you're going to travel with more than a thousand dollars cash, it's a
good idea to carry withdrawal slips or other proof that you came by the
money legally.

(arachnid) wrote in
newsan.2006.08.22.15.10.01.519282@goawayspammer. com:

> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:47:57 +0000, Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>
>> This has been going on for some time. Sums as low as a few
>> thousand are subject to seizure. <snip>
>
> If you're going to travel with more than a thousand dollars cash,
> it's a good idea to carry withdrawal slips or other proof that you
> came by the money legally.

What kind of proof could that possibly be as to the ultimate source
of the money?

Heck, the fact that you put the money in a bank and later took it out
would probably be taken as evidence of attempted money laundering.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:13:55 +0000, Bert Hyman wrote:

> (arachnid) wrote in
> newsan.2006.08.22.15.10.01.519282@goawayspammer. com:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:47:57 +0000, Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>>
>>> This has been going on for some time. Sums as low as a few
>>> thousand are subject to seizure. <snip>
>>
>> If you're going to travel with more than a thousand dollars cash,
>> it's a good idea to carry withdrawal slips or other proof that you
>> came by the money legally.
>
> What kind of proof could that possibly be as to the ultimate source
> of the money?

The same question could be asked of money sitting in your bank account.

> Heck, the fact that you put the money in a bank and later took it out
> would probably be taken as evidence of attempted money laundering.

If you're putting too much in and taking it right out again, and doing
that often, you can be sure a computer somewhere will take note.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp
>
> 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.

Bull****. No doubt that this case will now go to the US Supreme court where
the 8th circuit will once again have their butts kicked hard.
Even though the dog barking gave probable cause to search, finding no
evidence of drugs does not give officers the right to confiscate, and retain
the cash, regardless of the amount.
With the driver having no prior history of being involved in drug related
charges, or investigations, does not give authorities the right to
confiscate personal property.
Why was the car not seized?
Even though the driver's name is not on the rental contract, to the rental
company makes no difference. Nor should it make any difference to the law.
You own a car, is your child's name on the title even though the child
drive's it?
What does "A large sum of money" mean?
Ok so the man was a fool, insane, for driving around with that amount of
cash on hand. So what? It's his right.

I know of one case where a certain person won several hundred thousand
dollars at a casino. Took the cash home with him. Cops escorted the man to
the state line since he lived in the adjoining state.

As an american, I have the right to drive any vehicle I choose to, with any
amount of cash in it I desire.
This ruling is now going to give officers the legal right to stop YOU, and
confiscate that cash you have on hand simply because you have it and claim
it was being used in drug related activities.

Bull****.

Get rid of these damn asshole judges on the bench permanently.

wrote:
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp
>
> 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.
>

Easy fix...fill your gas tank and you probably will not have much of
anything left!