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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://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.
Last edited:
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?
