[I.M. Boggled]

United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, 05-3295 (8th Cir. 2006), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that was handed down on August 18, 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp

August 19, 2006

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.

thats fucked i know allot of small buisness owners who have 3-10k some times on them (and some toke for personal use), i can't beliave they got aways with that even if that guy was guilty, there was very little evidence. Just shows the goverment isin it for one reason, the $, but wait i though they where supposed to be in it for the people and not lobbiest, corperations and special intrest groups?

[glock23]

all I can say is I'm glad I'm out of the US now. Sure, I love it, but the laws are FUCKED.

[SEEDYNONO]

yeah the world mostly sucks.

[l_d_d]

First of all, that is some BULLSHIT! Maybe Im just to high, but he got it back or no? Seems liek the judge saw the BS.


.....he supp. got it through the airport aparently.

Im not sure but in the US if you have over a certain amount (10k?) you have to claim it????

Yeah you have to claim it, he may not had proof that he earned it, he didn't get it back, you don'thave to pay taxes till the end of the year so who says he wasn't going to claim it?

[l_d_d]

I mean claim $ when going through the airport. I believe over a certain amount of cash you are sposed 2.

I'm fairly certain that you only have to claim that you're carrying $10,000.00 or more if you're crossing a border.

If you're dealing with a financial institution, and the amount approaches $10,000.00, they are supposed to fill out specific paper work, reporting a -transaction- of that amount.

Since the USA PATRIOT Act, money orders of over $3,000.00 are supposed to be reported as well.

That we know of, this fellow didn't cross any borders, didn't exceed $10,000.00 in a transaction with a financial institution, didn't purchase a money order over $3,000.00, wasn't accused of 'smurfing' in any of those circumstances, and, therefore, was in no actual violation.

All that he apparently violated in terms of financial prudence, was the officer's sense of what wealth is and who should and shouldn't have it.

And no, the fellow didn't get his or his partners' investment money returned, despite there being no proof that his funds were proceeds from criminal activity.

This ruling should alarm any person who carries more money than the next cop who stops you thinks that you should have.. Whatever arbitrary amount that might be, since this ruling, based on my earlier reading of it, contains -no- specific bottom-end limits.. leaving that to the discretion of the officer(s).

moose eater

[demonicaardvark]

that pisses me off, the guy was just trying to earn a better living for himself by buying a truck so he could do something besides hard labor for the rest of his live, then along comes this jackass cop who is greedy as fuck and decides that his department could really use a nice donation so they can buy some new fancy cars and arrest some more innocent drug users...i hope this guy takes it to the supreme court, this is obviously a clear cut fourth amendment case, too bad he probably cant afford a decent lawyer who has any balls to argue the case on that basis...

>>>the guy was just trying to earn a better living for himself<<<

That's his and his friends' testimony, anyway. And in the USSA there was once a time that they would've needed to -prove- otherwise. Not anymore. This is where apathy and disinterest in the voting-age public has taken us. Not that the alternative ballot choices have always been stellar.

>>>i hope this guy takes it to the supreme court, this is obviously a clear cut fourth amendment case, too bad he probably cant afford a decent lawyer who has any balls to argue the case on that basis...<<<

I believe that they already have argued re. 'unlawful seizure' in lower court, and on appeal.

And bear in mind that the current Supreme Court Justices in this country are politically appointed hacks who have seldom met a search warrant application, or search based on probable cause that they didn't like... a lot.

If a case such as this one were to go before the current SCOTUS, I personally believe that there's at least a strong chance that this Banana Republik bs could become the law of the land here in the Nanny State, and for the forseeable future.

moose eater