Carrying lots of cash? Government can seize it.

[Texsox]

Link

In essence, the court ruled last month that anyone driving with large quantities of cash must be assumed to be guilty of something, and that the government can take that cash from its owner. No evidence of wrongdoing need be found for the police to take the money and run.

[NorthSideSox72]

Link

That snippet is highly misleading. According to the article, in addition to $124,000 in cash, other evidence and cause included:

 

--Speeding

--Previous arrest record

--Initial denial of said arrest record by subject

--Drug sniffing dog finds scent of drugs on money and elsewhere

--Rental car contract under different name than driver's license

 

Also, seizure of the assets is not permanent in the case of arrests like this. In theory, if he were acquitted or charges were dropped, he'd get it back. As long as that happened, I see nothing wrong here. The cash becomes evidence for a trial, should one occur. Its part of the law.

 

Now, if he was acquitted or charges were dropped AND he never got the money back, then I'd find that improper.

[Steff]

I was just about to comment on the other factors in his case, and that the 8th Circuit reversed the district court.

[Texsox]

Previous arrest was for a traffic violations (DUI) most people think of being arrested for things like assault, robbery, drugs, etc.

 

Anyone driving a rental that someone else rented is automatically a criminal?

 

Rental cars have many different drivers, the current driver should not be assumed guilty based on invisible scents.

 

next time you rent a car carefully check it out and make certain there are no scents that a dog can pick up, and also check your money.

 

The 8th Circuit has now reversed the district court. It argued that “possession of a large sum of cash is ‘strong evidence’ of a connection to drug activity.” The court called it a common-sense view that concealing large amounts of money is more likely to be the result of drug activity than of Mr. Gonzolez’s stated reason of hiding money from would-be thieves. The court found a number of Mr. Gonzolez’s traveling arrangements to be suspicious. And that was enough for the court.

 

So Americans can now be arrested for carrying cash.

 

Just because someone is involved in suspicious activity doesn’t mean they have done anything wrong. In this country, the government is supposed to have proof before denying a person his liberty or his property. The government could not prosecute Mr. Gonzolez on drug charges, given the lack of evidence, yet it claimed authority to keep his money, anyway.

 

That's nice, we'll seize your property, and if we find out you are INNOCENT, then we'll give it back. I thought America only seized property from the guilty.

[NorthSideSox72]

Previous arrest was for a traffic violations (DUI) most people think of being arrested for things like assault, robbery, drugs, etc.

 

Anyone driving a rental that someone else rented is automatically a criminal?

 

Rental cars have many different drivers, the current driver should not be assumed guilty based on invisible scents.

 

next time you rent a car carefully check it out and make certain there are no scents that a dog can pick up, and also check your money.

So Americans can now be arrested for carrying cash.

That's nice, we'll seize your property, and if we find out you are INNOCENT, then we'll give it back. I thought America only seized property from the guilty.

Oh come on, Tex. The guy wasn't arrested for driving a rental car, nor was he arrested for carrying cash. He was arrested based on a collection of evidence (as stated earlier) that amounted to just cause. You are just picking one element of the evidence and complaining that he was arrested solely for that, which is untrue.

 

You've seen me post in here enough to know I almost always end up siding with individual rights over security. But in this case, nothing was done wrong.

 

And in America, property is NOT just seized from the guilty - it is seized, TEMPORARILY, as evidence when warranted. The 5th amendment takings clause pertains to permanently seized or devalued assets, not evidence being held for a trial. This is totally proper.

 

Next time I drive, I'll be sure not to speed, have someone else rent a car in my name, lie to a cop, have a DUI arrest (DUI is NOT a traffic ordinance violation, it is a law violation), and carry 124,000 drug-rubbed dollars in my car.

Edited September 13, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[Texsox]

Heading to work today, how many people should have been arrested for speeding? 50%? 75%?

We have no control over what is on the money we receive, or the cars we rent.

 

No drugs were found. No drug residue was found, no drug involvement on his record. His previous arrest was for a DUI. His property was seized because of

 

speeding, scents on stuff he had no control over, a DUI he didn't consider a crime, and carrying cash. As it turned out, they could not charge him on any drug charges.

 

And as for the scents, guess what, everyone reading this is probably guilty of having drug scented money.

In one 1985 study done by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration on the money machines in a U.S. Federal Reserve district bank, random samples of $50 and $100 bills revealed that a third to a half of all the currency tested bore traces of cocaine. Moreover, the machines themselves were often found to test positive, meaning that subsequent batches of cash fed through them would also pick up cocaine residue. Expert evidence given before a federal appeals court in 1995 showed that three out of four bills randomly examined in the Los Angeles area bore traces of the drug. In a 1997 study conducted at the Argonne National Laboratory, nearly four out of five one-dollar bills in Chicago suburbs were found to bear discernable traces of cocaine. In another study, more than 135 bills from seven U.S. cities were tested, and all but four were contaminated with traces of cocaine. These bills had been collected from restaurants, stores, and banks in cities from Milwaukee to Dallas.

From Snopes

[Steff]

Tit, tat, tit, tat...

Regardless, your thread title is misleading. He was not charged with a crime, thus it's not illegal to carry "too much" cash. His property was detained for reasons some (many IMO) would call reasonable.

[Texsox]

Changed the title.

 

The court ruled that the most obvious reason to carry large amounts of cash is because you are involved in drugs. That sounds like guilty until proven innocent.

[Steff]

The court ruled that the most obvious reason to carry large amounts of cash is because you are involved in drugs. That sounds like guilty until proven innocent.

 

 

 

Of all the folks caught carrying large sums of cash... I would bet high that most of them are breaking the law in some way, shape, or form.

[Texsox]

Of all the folks caught carrying large sums of cash... I would bet high that most of them are breaking the law in some way, shape, or form.

 

I would agree. But should that be enough to have the government seize their property until they can prove themselves innocent?

[Steff]

I would agree. But should that be enough to have the government seize their property until they can prove themselves innocent?

 

 

 

If I was stupid enough to be carrying around that much money without explaination I would not mind the hassle. It's common sense for me.

[Texsox]

I guess I'm not ready to give up on innocent until proven guilty.

 

BTW, he had an explaination.

[Steff]

I guess I'm not ready to give up on innocent until proven guilty.

 

BTW, he had an explaination.

 

 

 

Bang, bang, bang....

 

 

You win.

 

 

He initially LIED...

 

The government claimed that “the dog’s alert, along with the large amount of cash that was seized, the circumstances of Gonzolez’s travel, and Gonzolez’s initial false denials that he was carrying cash or that he had a criminal history, showed that the currency was substantially connected to a drug transaction,” according to the court analysis. Friends and relatives of Mr. Gonzolez testified that they had given him money from their savings so that he could buy a refrigerated truck for their produce business, and Mr. Gonzolez said he didn’t mention the cash to officers because he was “scared” and he said he had no arrest record because he didn’t think a DUI was considered a crime.

 

 

Probable cause because of his own actions.

 

Common sense would have likely saved him some trouble...

[NorthSideSox72]

We are talking about an arrest here, not a conviction. The entire concept of Innocent until proven Guilty resides with the courts, where guilt and innocence is determined. On the street, its probable cause, and there was plenty of that to be had in this case.

[southsider2k5]

Bang, bang, bang....

You win.

He initially LIED...

 

The government claimed that “the dog’s alert, along with the large amount of cash that was seized, the circumstances of Gonzolez’s travel, and Gonzolez’s initial false denials that he was carrying cash or that he had a criminal history, showed that the currency was substantially connected to a drug transaction,” according to the court analysis. Friends and relatives of Mr. Gonzolez testified that they had given him money from their savings so that he could buy a refrigerated truck for their produce business, and Mr. Gonzolez said he didn’t mention the cash to officers because he was “scared” and he said he had no arrest record because he didn’t think a DUI was considered a crime.

Probable cause because of his own actions.

 

Common sense would have likely saved him some trouble...

 

And changing your story is cause for further investigation, just ask Kap about border patrol

[Texsox]

What did he do that was illegal that would cause the government to seize his property?

 

He lied about something that was legal, carrying cash.

He lied when he said he wasn't convicted of a crime. He believed a DUI wasn't a crime.

There was a scent of drugs on his money (see my post above, we're all guilty there)

There was a scent of drugs in a rental car. No residue. Just a scent in a rental car.

 

There is a difference between arresting him and seizing his property. I believe they went too far in seizing his property.

 

 

 

 

We are talking about an arrest here, not a conviction. The entire concept of Innocent until proven Guilty resides with the courts, where guilt and innocence is determined. On the street, its probable cause, and there was plenty of that to be had in this case.

 

We are talking about seizing his property, not the arrest.

[Steff]

How about just being HONEST when pulled over.

 

This guy brought this on himself. Omission IS deception 99.9% of the time.

 

How being CONVICTED of a DUI to this guy is NOT a crime is beyond me. Idiot, plain and simple.

[NorthSideSox72]

What did he do that was illegal that would cause the government to seize his property?

 

He lied about something that was legal, carrying cash.

He lied when he said he wasn't convicted of a crime. He believed a DUI wasn't a crime.

There was a scent of drugs on his money (see my post above, we're all guilty there)

There was a scent of drugs in a rental car. No residue. Just a scent in a rental car.

 

There is a difference between arresting him and seizing his property. I believe they went too far in seizing his property.

We are talking about seizing his property, not the arrest.

 

1. When you arrest someone, with the intention to prosecute for a crime, you seize evidence. They did. This happens all the time. Its part of the investigative process and its deemed acceptable by the courts.

 

2. Let me ask you this... if a man walks into a police station and says "I just killed a man!", and they arrest him... what crime did he commit? No, he didn't murder anyone, did he? He SAID he did. But they arrest or detain him anyway. Why? So they can conduct an investigation. His confession is evidence. The officers did not actually witness ANY crime in commission, did they?

[Texsox]

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)

 

He wasn't arrested, they seized the money while they investigated.

 

In your example, you have someone who confesses to something illegal. This man didn't confess to something legal. There is a difference.

 

What this ruling does is allow the police to confiscate the property of anyone who cares large sums of cash.

[Steff]

Oh my goodness...

[NorthSideSox72]

 

He wasn't arrested, they seized the money while they investigated.

 

In your example, you have someone who confesses to something illegal. This man didn't confess to something legal. There is a difference.

Did you read that attachment, Tex?

 

First of all, he was taken to the police facility in their custody - this means he was under arrest.

 

Second, there is even more weird stuff in there that he did. He lied about the rental contract, lied about even more things than were stated in your earlier article. Probable cause was absolutely established.

 

As for the canine scent, they did some blind compares of the money against other pocket money, and still the dog went for this dude's cash.

 

Now, all that said... the decision DOES state that the money was seized as part of supposed drug transaction, and that the seizure appears to be permanent. I do agree with you that if this is the case, that doesn't seem right. There was no prosection.

 

But here is the crux of the matter - the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000. That law sets the bar pretty low for seizing assets, and does not require prosecution for a crime. I'm surprised it passed Constitutional muster. In fact, I'd bet this case may result in a direct challenge of that law on appeal.

 

So I agree that any seizure should not be permanent, but apparently, Congress in 2000 disagreed.

[Texsox]

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

 

This is the problematic part. If you are carrying large sums of cash, you are automatically considered a drug dealer. That is the result of this ruling. Sometimes logical actions in one case have unintended consequences.

 

My understanding from one of the articles was he was never charged. I thought he could be transported to the station without being arrested?

[NorthSideSox72]

This is the problematic part. If you are carrying large sums of cash, you are automatically considered a drug dealer. That is the result of this ruling. Sometimes logical actions in one case have unintended consequences.

 

My understanding from one of the articles was he was never charged. I thought he could be transported to the station without being arrested?

Stop citing that snippet - it isn't from the courts, and its not true anyway. The law established the need for a material connection between the money and a drug crime. YOU CANNOT HAVE MONEY SEIZED JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT.

 

The question was, did all the combined evidence in this case amount to a clear connection between the money and a drug deal?

 

Whether or not the subject was arrested is not clear in the court papers. Being transported to the station could be an official arrest, or it could be some other involuntary custody, or voluntary custody. Depends on the circumstances. But usually, some sort of arrest took place.

[Texsox]

Read the attachment. Here is the bottom line.

 

He was never convicted of any crime in connection to the money.

The government now has his money.

He's innocent and out $124,000

 

I can't see how that can be correct.

 

I understand this is very analogous to OJ being found not guilty in criminal court and guilty in civil court. But it seems dangerous and gives the government powers I don't like them having.

 

In other cases, there were drugs found or a scent that humans could smell. I'm not claiming that the government's theory that this was drug money isn't correct, I think it is. But, I believe in our laws and constitution and do not believe the government should be allowed to seize property in this manner. The only evidence of a link to drugs was the amount itself.

[NorthSideSox72]

Read the attachment. Here is the bottom line.

 

He was never convicted of any crime in connection to the money.

The government now has his money.

He's innocent and out $124,000

 

I can't see how that can be correct.

 

I understand this is very analogous to OJ being found not guilty in criminal court and guilty in civil court. But it seems dangerous and gives the government powers I don't like them having.

I don't disagree with any of that. But per the current laws, its all OK. Write you Congressman.