Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 8/21/2006 10:20:13 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The only part that sounds fishy about his story (other than having that much cash) is why didn't he just fly back home; what reason is there for him to rent a car & drive?

Because someone in Chicago told him that it might be illegal to travel with that much cash. Given airport security, he thought it would be safer to drive.

But he claims to have already flown to Chicago with the cash - this is probably not the case - he most likely flew to Chicago with drugs which he sold for cash & could not fly back with the cash = MULE

Posted: 8/21/2006 10:23:03 AM EDT

[#2]

The defendant currency was seized on May 28, 2003, from one of the
claimants, Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez. According to testimony adduced at trial,
Gonzolez was driving west on Interstate 80 in a rented Ford Taurus when a Nebraska
State Patrol Trooper, Chris Bigsby, stopped Gonzolez for exceeding the posted speed
limit. Trooper Bigsby testified that he asked Gonzolez to sit in the front passenger
side of his patrol vehicle during the stop. At Bigsby’s request, Gonzolez presented
a Nevada driver’s license and a rental contract for the car, but the rental contract was
not in Gonzolez’s name and did not list Gonzolez as an additional driver.
Trooper Bigsby did not speak fluent Spanish, but he testified that Gonzolez
responded to his questions, which were mostly in English, in a combination of
English and Spanish. Bigsby asked Gonzolez where he was going, and Gonzolez
responded that he had been in Chicago for three days. Gonzolez indicated that a
person named “Luis” had rented the car for him, but the name “Luis” did not match
the name on the rental agreement that he presented to Trooper Bigsby. Trooper
Bigsby also twice inquired whether Gonzolez had ever been arrested or placed on
probation or parole, and Gonzolez said that he had not.
Before Trooper Bigsby had completed the traffic stop, another officer, Jason
Brownell, stopped to ask if Bigsby needed any assistance. When Trooper Bigsby
found out that Trooper Brownell had some Spanish-speaking ability, Bigsby asked
if Brownell would stay and assist. Trooper Bigsby testified that with Brownell’s
assistance, he completed a warning citation and returned Gonzolez’s license and
paperwork. Having learned through his dispatcher that Gonzolez had been arrested
in 2003 for driving while intoxicated, Bigsby then asked, through Trooper Brownell,
-3-
if he could “ask a few more questions,” and Gonzolez answered yes. Again through
Trooper Brownell, Bigsby asked if Gonzolez had ever been arrested for driving while
intoxicated, and Gonzolez answered that he had. Bigsby and Brownell also inquired
whether any alcohol, guns, marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin, or large amounts
of cash were in the car, and Gonzolez answered no. Brownell then asked for, and
received, consent to search the car. Trooper Bigsby went directly to the rear
passenger side of the vehicle and opened a cooler that was in the back seat, where he
found a large plastic bag that contained seven bundles wrapped in rubber bands inside
aluminum foil packaging. These bundles contained a total of $124,700 in currency.
Gonzolez and the vehicle were then taken to the Nebraska State Patrol office in
Lincoln.
In Lincoln, Trooper Bigsby continued his investigation with the help of another
trooper, Sean Caradori, and Trooper Caradori’s police canine, Rico. Rico was
deployed to sniff the exterior of the car, and the dog alerted to the rear passenger side
of the vehicle. Trooper Caradori testified that he conducted a test of the money that
was found within the vehicle by hiding both the currency taken from Gonzolez’s car
and a separate stack of seven bills borrowed from other troopers in the troopers’ break
room. Caradori testified that Rico alerted to the defendant currency but not to the
money borrowed from the troopers.
At trial, the government argued 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.
The claimants, however, argued that the cash was acquired legitimately. Manuel
Gomez testified that he had given Gonzolez $65,000 in cash, which was a
combination of money that he had borrowed from his father-in-law and his own
personal cash savings, with the expectation that Gonzolez would help him buy a
refrigerated truck for the produce business. Gonzolez testified that he gave $40,000
-4-
of his own money, plus $20,000 from a friend, Andres Madrigal Morgan, as an
investment in Gomez’s truck. Consistent with Gonzolez’s account, Andres Madrigal
Morgan testified that he contributed $20,000 in proceeds from a vehicle sale to
Gonzolez’s investment in the truck.
Gonzolez testified that after he had pooled the cash from Madrigal Morgan and
Gomez with his own cash, he heard from a friend in Chicago that a truck might be
available there from a friend of the friend, and he set out for Chicago by plane, taking
the cash with him in a small carry-on bag. Gonzolez said, however, that when he
arrived in Chicago and his friend picked him up from the airport, he learned that the
truck had been sold. In addition, the unidentified friend alerted Gonzolez that it was
“bad” to carry more than $10,000 in cash on your person. Newly fearful of carrying
his cash back to California by plane, Gonzolez testified that he decided to rent a car
rather than fly, but because neither he nor his friend had a credit card, a third
individual rented the car for him.
Gonzolez also testified that he hid the money in a cooler because he was afraid
that he might be assaulted or have the money stolen if it was readily observable. He
also explained that he was “scared” when the troopers began questioning him about
whether he was carrying drugs or currency. He said that he lied about the money and
about the names of other parties involved, because he believed that carrying large
amounts of cash might be illegal, and he did not want to get his friends in trouble.
With respect to Trooper Bigsby’s question about whether he had ever been arrested,
Gonzolez testified that Bigsby asked whether he “had any crimes” or “had been a
prisoner.” Gonzolez said he answered “no,” despite his arrest for driving under the
influence, because he “didn’t think that that was a crime.” (Tr. at 400).
The district court concluded that the government had not established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that there was a substantial connection between the
money and a drug trafficking offense. The court noted that large sums of unexplained
-5-
currency can be evidence of drug trafficking, and that in this case the money was
bundled in an unusual manner. The court also concluded, however, that the
claimants had given a “plausible and consistent explanation for [the money’s] origin
and intended use,” (Add. at 12), and that “the bundling is consistent with an attempt
to sort the currency by contributor and conceal the currency from would-be thieves,”
and not just to evade law enforcement. (Id. at 13). In addition, the court observed
that the government had not presented any expert testimony about “whether the
manner the bundles were wrapped either increased or decreased the likelihood of the
currency’s use or connection with a drug trafficking offense.” (Id.).
With respect to the canine alert, the court agreed that the alert provided some,
but only slight, evidence that the money was connected to drug trafficking. The court
also considered the circumstances and route of Gonzolez’s travel, and the fact that
Gonzolez had lied about the names of his friends and other details, but did not believe
that this evidence taken together with the other circumstances, including all the
claimants’ lack of significant criminal history, established a substantial connection
to drug activity. Because the court determined that the money was not subject to
forfeiture, it did not reach the question whether the claimants were innocent owners.
II.
Since the enactment of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, the
burden is on the government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
seized property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Forfeiture is
warranted under 21 U.S.C. § 881 when the government establishes a “‘substantial
connection’ between the property” and a controlled substance offense. 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(c)(3). We review any predicate factual findings for clear error, but the ultimate
conclusion as to whether those facts establish a “substantial connection” between
seized currency and a narcotics transaction is a mixed question of law and fact that
we review de novo. See United States v. Dodge Caravan Grand SE/Sport Van, 387

He flew out with the 124k huh?

Yeah right.

Posted: 8/21/2006 10:27:34 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The only part that sounds fishy about his story (other than having that much cash) is why didn't he just fly back home; what reason is there for him to rent a car & drive?

Because someone in Chicago told him that it might be illegal to travel with that much cash. Given airport security, he thought it would be safer to drive.

But he claims to have already flown to Chicago with the cash - this is probably not the case - he most likely flew to Chicago with drugs which he sold for cash & could not fly back with the cash = MULE

If that's the case, charge him with a drug-related crime.

Posted: 8/21/2006 10:30:38 AM EDT

[#4]

Having learned through his dispatcher that Gonzolez had been arrested
in 2003 for driving while intoxicated, Bigsby then asked, through Trooper Brownell,
-3-
if he could “ask a few more questions,” and Gonzolez answered yes. Again through
Trooper Brownell, Bigsby asked if Gonzolez had ever been arrested for driving while
intoxicated, and Gonzolez answered that he had. Bigsby and Brownell also inquired
whether any alcohol, guns, marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin, or large amounts
of cash were in the car, and Gonzolez answered no. Brownell then asked for, and
received, consent to search the car

What a moron he was free to go, but under the guise of being helpfull or respectfull opened himself up to the shakedown

Posted: 8/21/2006 10:36:17 AM EDT

[#5]

I drive I80 through Nebraska every weekend, and have for over a year and a half. I drive a Chevy Impala, 2004, with Colorado plates. I have been checked out by Nebraska State Troopers more than once, they pull up behind me and follow running my plates, then after 5 minutes they will pass. Once i was pulled over for 2 miles an hour over. The nice officer made sure to check out the interior of the car more than myself, asked me where I was headed and then let me go with a warning.

It didn't matter that while he was pulling me over there were 3 Nebraska plated cars passing me at least 5MPH over the speed limit.

Guess he was looking for the golden egg......

Posted: 8/21/2006 10:44:28 AM EDT

[#6]

They say that counterfitting is the reason that cash is bad but its all about control.
Its been a long time since you could tell the good guys from the bad guys and its just getting worse. Better people than these cops and lawyers are in jail for nothing or much less, IE victomless crimes. They say that all US currency has trace drugs on it...

Lex mala, lex nulla, an evil law is NO law.

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:04:40 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Ridiculous.

The article doesn't say that he was arrested, so was he released once the State Troopers had the money?

He was initially stopped for driving 70 mph in a 65 mph zone and received a written warning for exceeding the posted speed limit. He was detained after he consented to the vehicle search and the money was discovered in th cooler. He was not arrested nor was he ever charged with any crime.

The money seizure is a civil proceeding and all that's required for the State to proof its case is a preponderance of the evidence.

From the dissenting opinion:

LAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. Although the circumstantial evidence offered by the government provides some indication that the money seized in this case may be related to criminal activity, I cannot agree that the government has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the requisite substantial connection between the currency and a controlled substance offense.

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. 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. At most, the evidence presented suggests the money seized may have been involved in some illegal activity – activity that is incapable of being ascertained on the record before us. See United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060.00, 39 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[A] mere suspicion of illegal activity is not enough to establish . . . that the money was connected to drugs.”).

...................................................................

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:04:53 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I think I recall a black man that paid cash for an airline ticket had to go through a similar situation. The ACLU had to sue on his behalf and it took like 2 years to get his money back. Sad state of affairs that the burden of proof is virtually nonexistent in the 'war on drugs'. That's what worries me about the domestic 'war on terrorism'.

Yes, it was a well-known case. He was ratted out to cops by ticket agent after he purchased ticket for cash, she got ~~a kick back~~, err reward for it. I think he had $9600 or something, not a terriblely large sum. He was going to FL to buy wholesales cars or some other legitimate purpose he was able to document he had been doing for years.

Nothing to do with the war on terror. This crap has been going on for a long time before 9/11/2001.

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:07:30 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:09:02 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
The only part that sounds fishy about his story (other than having that much cash) is why didn't he just fly back home; what reason is there for him to rent a car & drive?

Nothing fishy at all. If they want his money, they should have to PROVE it, and he, was connected to a crime, period.

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:13:48 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

The defendant currency was seized on May 28, 2003, from one of the
claimants, Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez. According to testimony adduced at trial,
Gonzolez was driving west on Interstate 80 in a rented Ford Taurus when a Nebraska
State Patrol Trooper, Chris Bigsby, stopped Gonzolez for exceeding the posted speed
limit. Trooper Bigsby testified that he asked Gonzolez to sit in the front passenger
side of his patrol vehicle during the stop. At Bigsby’s request, Gonzolez presented
a Nevada driver’s license and a rental contract for the car, but the rental contract was
not in Gonzolez’s name and did not list Gonzolez as an additional driver.
Trooper Bigsby did not speak fluent Spanish, but he testified that Gonzolez
responded to his questions, which were mostly in English, in a combination of
English and Spanish. Bigsby asked Gonzolez where he was going, and Gonzolez
responded that he had been in Chicago for three days. Gonzolez indicated that a
person named “Luis” had rented the car for him, but the name “Luis” did not match
the name on the rental agreement that he presented to Trooper Bigsby. Trooper
Bigsby also twice inquired whether Gonzolez had ever been arrested or placed on
probation or parole, and Gonzolez said that he had not.
Before Trooper Bigsby had completed the traffic stop, another officer, Jason
Brownell, stopped to ask if Bigsby needed any assistance. When Trooper Bigsby
found out that Trooper Brownell had some Spanish-speaking ability, Bigsby asked
if Brownell would stay and assist. Trooper Bigsby testified that with Brownell’s
assistance, he completed a warning citation and returned Gonzolez’s license and
paperwork. Having learned through his dispatcher that Gonzolez had been arrested
in 2003 for driving while intoxicated, Bigsby then asked, through Trooper Brownell,
-3-
if he could “ask a few more questions,” and Gonzolez answered yes. Again through
Trooper Brownell, Bigsby asked if Gonzolez had ever been arrested for driving while
intoxicated, and Gonzolez answered that he had. Bigsby and Brownell also inquired
whether any alcohol, guns, marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin, or large amounts
of cash were in the car, and Gonzolez answered no. Brownell then asked for, and
received, consent to search the car. Trooper Bigsby went directly to the rear
passenger side of the vehicle and opened a cooler that was in the back seat, where he
found a large plastic bag that contained seven bundles wrapped in rubber bands inside
aluminum foil packaging. These bundles contained a total of $124,700 in currency.
Gonzolez and the vehicle were then taken to the Nebraska State Patrol office in
Lincoln.
In Lincoln, Trooper Bigsby continued his investigation with the help of another
trooper, Sean Caradori, and Trooper Caradori’s police canine, Rico. Rico was
deployed to sniff the exterior of the car, and the dog alerted to the rear passenger side
of the vehicle. Trooper Caradori testified that he conducted a test of the money that
was found within the vehicle by hiding both the currency taken from Gonzolez’s car
and a separate stack of seven bills borrowed from other troopers in the troopers’ break
room. Caradori testified that Rico alerted to the defendant currency but not to the
money borrowed from the troopers.
At trial, the government argued 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.
The claimants, however, argued that the cash was acquired legitimately. Manuel
Gomez testified that he had given Gonzolez $65,000 in cash, which was a
combination of money that he had borrowed from his father-in-law and his own
personal cash savings, with the expectation that Gonzolez would help him buy a
refrigerated truck for the produce business. Gonzolez testified that he gave $40,000
-4-
of his own money, plus $20,000 from a friend, Andres Madrigal Morgan, as an
investment in Gomez’s truck. Consistent with Gonzolez’s account, Andres Madrigal
Morgan testified that he contributed $20,000 in proceeds from a vehicle sale to
Gonzolez’s investment in the truck.
Gonzolez testified that after he had pooled the cash from Madrigal Morgan and
Gomez with his own cash, he heard from a friend in Chicago that a truck might be
available there from a friend of the friend, and he set out for Chicago by plane, taking
the cash with him in a small carry-on bag. Gonzolez said, however, that when he
arrived in Chicago and his friend picked him up from the airport, he learned that the
truck had been sold. In addition, the unidentified friend alerted Gonzolez that it was
“bad” to carry more than $10,000 in cash on your person. Newly fearful of carrying
his cash back to California by plane, Gonzolez testified that he decided to rent a car
rather than fly, but because neither he nor his friend had a credit card, a third
individual rented the car for him.
Gonzolez also testified that he hid the money in a cooler because he was afraid
that he might be assaulted or have the money stolen if it was readily observable. He
also explained that he was “scared” when the troopers began questioning him about
whether he was carrying drugs or currency. He said that he lied about the money and
about the names of other parties involved, because he believed that carrying large
amounts of cash might be illegal, and he did not want to get his friends in trouble.
With respect to Trooper Bigsby’s question about whether he had ever been arrested,
Gonzolez testified that Bigsby asked whether he “had any crimes” or “had been a
prisoner.” Gonzolez said he answered “no,” despite his arrest for driving under the
influence, because he “didn’t think that that was a crime.” (Tr. at 400).
The district court concluded that the government had not established, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that there was a substantial connection between the
money and a drug trafficking offense. The court noted that large sums of unexplained
-5-
currency can be evidence of drug trafficking, and that in this case the money was
bundled in an unusual manner. The court also concluded, however, that the
claimants had given a “plausible and consistent explanation for [the money’s] origin
and intended use,” (Add. at 12), and that “the bundling is consistent with an attempt
to sort the currency by contributor and conceal the currency from would-be thieves,”
and not just to evade law enforcement. (Id. at 13). In addition, the court observed
that the government had not presented any expert testimony about “whether the
manner the bundles were wrapped either increased or decreased the likelihood of the
currency’s use or connection with a drug trafficking offense.” (Id.).
With respect to the canine alert, the court agreed that the alert provided some,
but only slight, evidence that the money was connected to drug trafficking. The court
also considered the circumstances and route of Gonzolez’s travel, and the fact that
Gonzolez had lied about the names of his friends and other details, but did not believe
that this evidence taken together with the other circumstances, including all the
claimants’ lack of significant criminal history, established a substantial connection
to drug activity. Because the court determined that the money was not subject to
forfeiture, it did not reach the question whether the claimants were innocent owners.
II.
Since the enactment of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, the
burden is on the government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
seized property is subject to forfeiture. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Forfeiture is
warranted under 21 U.S.C. § 881 when the government establishes a “‘substantial
connection’ between the property” and a controlled substance offense. 18 U.S.C.
§ 983(c)(3). We review any predicate factual findings for clear error, but the ultimate
conclusion as to whether those facts establish a “substantial connection” between
seized currency and a narcotics transaction is a mixed question of law and fact that
we review de novo. See United States v. Dodge Caravan Grand SE/Sport Van, 387

He flew out with the 124k huh?

Yeah right.

If they suspected a crime they should have arrested him. If not, they had no business seizing his money.

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:17:00 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
It makes me want to vomit.

+1

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:25:44 AM EDT

[#13]

hope this one goes all the way to the top (not that they would make the correct ruling or anything) but if the sheep get wind of the widespread abuse it migh turn some sheep into thinking humans

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:31:28 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
hope this one goes all the way to the top (not that they would make the correct ruling or anything) but if the sheep get wind of the widespread abuse it migh turn some sheep into thinking humans

Don't think there is a chance in hell of the Supremes ruling correctly.

But this is nothing new.

It's all about .gov control of the money.

Jarhead_22 said it best, as he usually does.

TXL

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:32:45 AM EDT

[#15]

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Last of the mohicans
"Does the rule of law no longer govern or has it been replaced by absolutism?"

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:38:38 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
I drive I80 through Nebraska every weekend, and have for over a year and a half. I drive a Chevy Impala, 2004, with Colorado plates. I have been checked out by Nebraska State Troopers more than once, they pull up behind me and follow running my plates, then after 5 minutes they will pass. Once i was pulled over for 2 miles an hour over. The nice officer made sure to check out the interior of the car more than myself, asked me where I was headed and then let me go with a warning.

It didn't matter that while he was pulling me over there were 3 Nebraska plated cars passing me at least 5MPH over the speed limit.

Guess he was looking for the golden egg......

I'm driving the same interstate this Thursday on my way to Colorado. Guess I better watch myself then . . .

I've had WV State Troopers do that with me on I-77, follow and run my tags. Michigan is a big drug supplier to Appalachia.

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:39:02 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Am I reading this right? The guy is still free, but is out $124K?! Please tell me I missed something.

No, nothing missing. You just have'nt been up on this "Assest forfeiture" Bullshit that the Gov't has been doing for the last 25 some odd years. Basically it's like this, if your found with a large amount of Money it can be seized from you, with no proof of wrongdoing and essentially no recourse. It's all basically done in the whole "war on Drugs" thing. The reason why he was not arrested is because they could'nt charge him with anything. Now here is the real kicker, They have done tests to show that most Paper money used today can have small amounts of drugs on it like cocaine or heroin.
SO basically if you have ANY money a dog will detect the smell, even if you did'nt do anything wrong, and it can be seized. Welcome to the new Amerika...........

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:40:40 AM EDT

[#18]

Were drugs evar found in his rental car??

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:43:30 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

No it does not. The point is that the various legislatures are the ones that granted LEO the tools. LEO is just using (or misusing) those tools. The blame lies with the legislatures for not putting approrpriate controls into the laws.

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:44:38 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Were drugs evar found in his rental car??

No drugs were found nor was there any evidence that any of the three defendants were connected to illegal drug sales or any other illegal activity.

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:47:17 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
SCOTUS needs to step in and rectify this immediately.

LMAO. Sure they will just step up and do the right thing. I have a bridge for sale in NY cheep only 10k and it is yours. please send a cahsiers check to my address and I'll send you the deed...

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:47:36 AM EDT

[#22]

Illegals tend to tote around their life’s savings because opening a bank account would mean that they needed a SSN and they would have to start paying taxes.

They tend to buy houses, cars and everything else with cash.

The only real drawback to it is stories like this one.

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:52:05 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Illegals tend to tote around their life’s savings because opening a bank account would mean that they needed a SSN and they would have to start paying taxes.

It's not just Illegals. I know plenty of hard working legal folks from mexico who disdain the banking system. I know of a guy who carries his life savings to work everyday, and refuses to put his money in the bank because "they'll steal it from him." (Which I believe happened to him in a mexico bank)

Posted: 8/21/2006 11:59:13 AM EDT

[#24]

Holy shit.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:00:46 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

No it does not. The point is that the various legislatures are the ones that granted LEO the tools. LEO is just using (or misusing) those tools. The blame lies with the legislatures for not putting approrpriate controls into the laws.

You can apologize for the cops if you want to. You can justify their criminal behavior if you want to. But don't think for a second that that will get you a pass when they decide to rape you out of your property.
The janitor is just as guilty as the commandant of the death camp.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:06:17 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Were drugs evar found in his rental car??

No drugs were found nor was there any evidence that any of the three defendants were connected to illegal drug sales or any other illegal activity.

Thanks

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:08:16 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Land of the free...

Quoted:
I'll post my same comment: Good thing they didn't find him with 1,000 cell phones.

I was thinking the same, everyone would be defending this if he was a scary looking A-rab. Sad.

You're right...of course we also happen to be at war with people who tend to be middle eastern muslims....

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:13:00 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Illegals tend to tote around their life’s savings because opening a bank account would mean that they needed a SSN and they would have to start paying taxes.

They tend to buy houses, cars and everything else with cash.

The only real drawback to it is stories like this one.

Where in the story did it mention anything about him being an illegal immigrant? If he was, they should have arrest him for that.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:14:28 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

No it does not. The point is that the various legislatures are the ones that granted LEO the tools. LEO is just using (or misusing) those tools. The blame lies with the legislatures for not putting approrpriate controls into the laws.

Left to the officer's discretion, you would think they would do the right thing. Just because you are given the power to do something doesn't mean you have to, especially if it is left to your discretion.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:15:19 PM EDT

[#30]

I probably would have gone out and committed a real felony if this happened to me.

So, basically the police can now confiscate anything they want from anybody without charging or arresting anyone for any crime. Based solely on their own suspicion. And they never have to return the property.

Sounds like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia to me, folks.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:15:40 PM EDT

[#31]

I drove from PA to Florida with $27,000 cash on me a couple years ago.
I was on my way to buy another race car.

The whole time I was on the road, my biggest fear was being pulled over by the Police. I wasn't worried about carjackers or being robbed by a criminal. I was worried about being robbed by the Police.

That's the honest to God truth.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:16:55 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
I probably would have gone out and committed a real felony if this happened to me.

So, basically the police can now confiscate anything they want from anybody without charging or arresting anyone for any crime. Based solely on their own suspicion. And they never have to return the property.

Sounds like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia to me, folks.

This is nothing new and has nothing to do with the war on terror or the PA. It's been going on for at least 20 years due to the bogus 'war on drugs'.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:21:33 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I probably would have gone out and committed a real felony if this happened to me.

So, basically the police can now confiscate anything they want from anybody without charging or arresting anyone for any crime. Based solely on their own suspicion. And they never have to return the property.

Sounds like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia to me, folks.

This is nothing new and has nothing to do with the war on terror or the PA. It's been going on for at least 20 years due to the bogus 'war on drugs'.

Understood.

What gets me is the cops that would actually do this (making themselves the judge, jury, and executioner without a trial) and then blaming the State legislatures with the lame-ass excuse "I was just doing my job."

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:24:46 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I probably would have gone out and committed a real felony if this happened to me.

So, basically the police can now confiscate anything they want from anybody without charging or arresting anyone for any crime. Based solely on their own suspicion. And they never have to return the property.

Sounds like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia to me, folks.

This is nothing new and has nothing to do with the war on terror or the PA. It's been going on for at least 20 years due to the bogus 'war on drugs'.

Understood.

What gets me is the cops that would actually do this (making themselves the judge, jury, and executioner without a trial) and then blaming the State legislatures with the lame-ass excuse "I was just doing my job."

I was referring to "can now confiscate" as if it was something new.

As for the cops, like I said, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you have to especially when you know it is wrong.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:24:48 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Land of the free...

Quoted:
I'll post my same comment: Good thing they didn't find him with 1,000 cell phones.

I was thinking the same, everyone would be defending this if he was a scary looking A-rab. Sad.

You're right...of course we also happen to be at war with people who tend to be middle eastern muslims....

Be careful of supporting any government 'war' where US citizens are targets.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:26:18 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
This gross generaliztion, from page 6 of the official court document, seems to be at the heart of the finding:

Possession of a large sum of cash is “strong evidence” of a connection to drug activity

This is such a stretch that it's almost laughable. Almost.

Fucking DISGUSTING, is what it is...

Sure got some arrogant cocksuckers in that courthouse.

They should lose their fucking JOBS over a decision like that.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:26:51 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

No it does not. The point is that the various legislatures are the ones that granted LEO the tools. LEO is just using (or misusing) those tools. The blame lies with the legislatures for not putting approrpriate controls into the laws.

Left to the officer's discretion, you would think they would do the right thing. Just because you are given the power to do something doesn't mean you have to, especially if it is left to your discretion.

You give a monkey a gun and the monkey shoots someone you don't blame the monkey. All I'm saying is the root blame lies with the legislature in giving overzealous LEO this power.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:40:06 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
sure sure, because i know i often transport over $100,000 dollars in cash, and i have no connection to drugs.

It doesn't matter to me if it's dope money or not-if the guy isn't in the commission of a crime, what right does the government have to just confiscate his money?
Even if he's a suspected dope dealer, which in this case it seems he isn't, you release him with his money. Sometimes the dope dealers get away to be caught another day.
There is no law against carrying cash.
Just today, I deposited a $10,000 check in my account. I got the money legally, if asked I could easily show where it came from, but should the government be allowed to take it from me until I proved it's source?
I have a major, major problem with local, state or federal government setting an arbitrary amount of how much cash can be carried, subject to confiscation if it exceeds the "legal limit."
I have many LEO friends that support asset forfieture because they never think it'll be them. Some of them have large gun collections, that could label them as terrorists.

I'm all for looking into why young arab muslims may have 1,000 cell phones on them, but to me that's more probable cause in the totality of the circumstances that just carrying cash. I still don't think the arabs should have been locked up at the time if they committed no jailable offense, but a tail should be put on them and they should be placed under surveillance.

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:42:28 PM EDT

[#39]

Now I am neither advocating nor endorsing any activity but I would understand if he chose to get 100k in restitution any way he could. What kind of crime would you have to commit to be charged with a 100k+ fine?

Posted: 8/21/2006 12:51:42 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Land of the free...

Quoted:
I'll post my same comment: Good thing they didn't find him with 1,000 cell phones.

I was thinking the same, everyone would be defending this if he was a scary looking A-rab. Sad.

You're right...of course we also happen to be at war with people who tend to be middle eastern muslims....

We are always at war with someone or something. No reason to give up our rights.

Posted: 8/21/2006 1:11:11 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The only part that sounds fishy about his story (other than having that much cash) is why didn't he just fly back home; what reason is there for him to rent a car & drive?

Because someone in Chicago told him that it might be illegal to travel with that much cash. Given airport security, he thought it would be safer to drive.

But he claims to have already flown to Chicago with the cash - this is probably not the case - he most likely flew to Chicago with drugs which he sold for cash & could not fly back with the cash = MULE

He may very well have been a mule. It may have been drug money. So what?

Then it should be up to the goverment to prove that, not the other way around.

---

ETA: Referring to another thread, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you allow us to search?"

This is one damn good reason.

If the drug dog scratches his fleas they will say the dog "alerted". Drug dogs have as much credibility with me these days as polygraphs.

Posted: 8/21/2006 1:22:40 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

No it does not. The point is that the various legislatures are the ones that granted LEO the tools. LEO is just using (or misusing) those tools. The blame lies with the legislatures for not putting approrpriate controls into the laws.

Hey genius, the RED part of your response doesn't square with the BLUE part.

Are you saying that a cop isn't responsible for his BS actions, but the legislature IS?

Posted: 8/21/2006 1:26:26 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

No it does not. The point is that the various legislatures are the ones that granted LEO the tools. LEO is just using (or misusing) those tools. The blame lies with the legislatures for not putting approrpriate controls into the laws.

Hey genius, the RED part of your response doesn't square with the BLUE part.

Are you saying that a cop isn't responsible for his BS actions, but the legislature IS?

Thanks for commenting on my intellect. I think red and the blue match perfectly and if you thought about it a little deeper I'm sure you would come to the same conclusion. What I'm saying is the root cause of the problem is the legislatures enacting overreaching laws. If they did not enact such laws then cops would not have the power to misuse those laws.

Posted: 8/21/2006 1:26:56 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

No it does not. The point is that the various legislatures are the ones that granted LEO the tools. LEO is just using (or misusing) those tools. The blame lies with the legislatures for not putting approrpriate controls into the laws.

Left to the officer's discretion, you would think they would do the right thing. Just because you are given the power to do something doesn't mean you have to, especially if it is left to your discretion.

You give a monkey a gun and the monkey shoots someone you don't blame the monkey. All I'm saying is the root blame lies with the legislature in giving overzealous LEO this power.

What!? Is a cop a monkey now? A cop doesn't have any sense of right and wrong or respect for any individuals property?

If so then why are you happy with the cops again? Monkey's with guns...

Posted: 8/21/2006 1:29:50 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

No it does not. The point is that the various legislatures are the ones that granted LEO the tools. LEO is just using (or misusing) those tools. The blame lies with the legislatures for not putting approrpriate controls into the laws.

Hey genius, the RED part of your response doesn't square with the BLUE part.

Are you saying that a cop isn't responsible for his BS actions, but the legislature IS?

Thanks for commenting on my intellect. I think red and the blue match perfectly and if you thought about it a little deeper I'm sure you would come to the same conclusion. What I'm saying is the root cause of the problem is the legislatures enacting overreaching laws. If they did not enact such laws then cops would not have the power to misuse those laws.

Sorry bud, but the blame for misuse of the tool goes right to the person misusing the tool, unless you think that cops are no more than monkeys with guns.

Glad to know that you think a cop has absolutely NO responsibility for his actions.

Posted: 8/21/2006 1:30:13 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

No it does not. The point is that the various legislatures are the ones that granted LEO the tools. LEO is just using (or misusing) those tools. The blame lies with the legislatures for not putting approrpriate controls into the laws.

Left to the officer's discretion, you would think they would do the right thing. Just because you are given the power to do something doesn't mean you have to, especially if it is left to your discretion.

You give a monkey a gun and the monkey shoots someone you don't blame the monkey. All I'm saying is the root blame lies with the legislature in giving overzealous LEO this power.

What!? Is a cop a monkey now? A cop doesn't have any sense of right and wrong or respect for any individuals property?

If so then why are you happy with the cops again? Monkey's with guns...

You obviously have difficulty with logic or discerning the figurative from the literal.

Posted: 8/21/2006 1:32:07 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

No it does not. The point is that the various legislatures are the ones that granted LEO the tools. LEO is just using (or misusing) those tools. The blame lies with the legislatures for not putting approrpriate controls into the laws.

Left to the officer's discretion, you would think they would do the right thing. Just because you are given the power to do something doesn't mean you have to, especially if it is left to your discretion.

You give a monkey a gun and the monkey shoots someone you don't blame the monkey. All I'm saying is the root blame lies with the legislature in giving overzealous LEO this power.

What!? Is a cop a monkey now? A cop doesn't have any sense of right and wrong or respect for any individuals property?

If so then why are you happy with the cops again? Monkey's with guns...

You obviously have difficulty with logic or discerning the figurative from the literal.

Not really, but I think you do. Don't draw up an analogy if you don't want to apply it to the subject at hand. Duh.

Posted: 8/21/2006 1:33:32 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
For all of the thug cops that will read this, this is reason #1243 why people hate your fithy guts. You have and will continue to do such vile things as this.

You're better off blaming the state and federal legislatures for enacting civil asset forfeiture laws. The laws essentially allow LEO to seize assets (including cash) if they suspect they are being used in the drug trade. No warrant required. Just the discretion of LEO. The sick part is that the burden is on the citizen to prove they were not involved in the drug trade.

We can all agree that taking assets from a drug dealer is a good thing, but it is being done at the expense of many innocent citizens.

Kind of defeats your point, wouldn't you say.

No it does not. The point is that the various legislatures are the ones that granted LEO the tools. LEO is just using (or misusing) those tools. The blame lies with the legislatures for not putting approrpriate controls into the laws.

Hey genius, the RED part of your response doesn't square with the BLUE part.

Are you saying that a cop isn't responsible for his BS actions, but the legislature IS?

Thanks for commenting on my intellect. I think red and the blue match perfectly and if you thought about it a little deeper I'm sure you would come to the same conclusion. What I'm saying is the root cause of the problem is the legislatures enacting overreaching laws. If they did not enact such laws then cops would not have the power to misuse those laws.

Sorry bud, but the blame for misuse of the tool goes right to the person misusing the tool, unless you think that cops are no more than monkeys with guns.

Glad to know that you think a cop has absolutely NO responsibility for his actions.

warhistorian.org/blog1/images/chimpanzee-glock.gif

Again, you seem to have trouble with the finer points of logic. Never did I say that cops were not responsible for their actions. But let's analyze this. What the cops are doing is perfectly legal under the statutes and as interpreted by the Courts. Are they acting morally? Not necessarily and certainly not in all instances. Yet they are still acting lawfully. So the root problem is not with the cops, it is with the legislature who enacted the overreaching laws. Does that seem to make any sense to you or would you like to escalate to further name calling?

Posted: 8/21/2006 1:33:53 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Land of the free...

Quoted:
I'll post my same comment: Good thing they didn't find him with 1,000 cell phones.

I was thinking the same, everyone would be defending this if he was a scary looking A-rab. Sad.

You're right...of course we also happen to be at war with people who tend to be middle eastern muslims....

We are always at war with someone or something. No reason to give up whats left of our rights.

There, fixed it for you.....

Posted: 8/21/2006 1:37:32 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The only part that sounds fishy about his story (other than having that much cash) is why didn't he just fly back home; what reason is there for him to rent a car & drive?

Because someone in Chicago told him that it might be illegal to travel with that much cash. Given airport security, he thought it would be safer to drive.

But he claims to have already flown to Chicago with the cash - this is probably not the case - he most likely flew to Chicago with drugs which he sold for cash & could not fly back with the cash = MULE

He may very well have been a mule. It may have been drug money. So what?

Then it should be up to the goverment to prove that, not the other way around.

---

ETA: Referring to another thread, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you allow us to search?"

This is one damn good reason.

If the drug dog scratches his fleas they will say the dog "alerted". Drug dogs have as much credibility with me these days as polygraphs.

You interaction should go something like this:

You: Hello officer/trooper/rank How are you doing today/night
Offcer: I am ____ with _____ the reason I stopped you was ______ May I see your DL and POI
Sure no problem
I will be back in just a min.

Hopefully 99.9% of all stops will go like this and he/she will come back with a ciation or warning or let you go with a verbal

Now here are the answers if they are the 1%

officer: Where are you going?
You: Home/Work/Store/Visit family

offcier: Do you mind if I have a look arround
I do not consent to a search, Am I free to go? (don't say yes or no as these can be played with as in he said no (he didn't mind) he said yes (it was ok)
Officer: What are you trying to hide? If you don't consent you will be arrested or we will get a dog
you: I do not consent to a search, Am I free to go?, May I speak to you Sgt or watch commander?

You get the idea NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH, The reason they try this bullshit is that most people even if guilty as sin will consent when there is not a smidge of PC/RS and everyone just wants to be a nice guy and think that if I let them search they will cut me some slack WRONG!!!!

For those of us who have nothing illegal it's worth my time to make a small stand for liberty and wait out the bluff (9/10 of the time they say they are going to get a dog it is a bluff, same thing as you will be arrested) Bottom line 7/10 of the time if they have RS they are not going to ask they are just going to search while you are in the back seat "for your safety"

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us