Driving With Money is a Crime: Federal Appeals Court rules

[inflorescence]

Um even in $100 dollar bills 125K is a sizeable stack to have carried on a plane to chicago without being scanned and noticed by customs. At what point does it make sense to rent a car [3rd party too] and roadtrip with a shitload of cash back to mexico? Why wouldnt you go back the same way you came, by plane?

Not to mention how fishy it sounds to go to chicago to buy a produce truck. Dont they sell them in mexico? I bet theres a couple in texas too.

just does not add up that is why the cash was taken...

Doesn't matter if his story doesn't add up. The burden is on the US to prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise.

The fact that large sums of money are considered reasonable evidence of a crime is the scary part of this whole story. Seems to me there should definately be more proof to be considered reasonable.

 

[Guest]

I wouldn't expect this will be the last we'll hear of this case.

 

[Guest]

>>>sounds fishy especially since the drug dogs were alerted to the cash meaning contrband was near that cash recently......<<<
-------------------
Not necessarily true at all. It's been quite effectively demonstrated that a significant percentage of U.S. currency in circulation has narcotics residue on it at any given time. This means that you could withdraw money from your local bank, and providing that they don't give you fresh, crisp, uncirculated bills, a proficient dope dog would likely alert to it.
-------------------
>>>explain how someone without a credit card can save 125k<<<
-------------------
I've known a number of persons (gold miners, commercial fisherman, etc.) who were worth gobs of cash, and didn't use plastic. Some of them wore funky old cotton long-johns and smelled like motor oil and fish, too.....

The story that the fellow gave was that the money was an accumulation of funds belonging to he and his associates, who were trying to buy a truck in order to start a business.

It doesn't matter if someone finds his story 'fishy.' In theory, the burden of proof is on the government to show that the money was ill-gotten gains (and uncle Schmuck gets the benefit of the doubt in court -far- more often than you will, btw... and not necessarily because he's less corrupt, either...).
-----------------
>>>even in $100 dollar bills 125K is a sizeable stack to have carried on a plane to chicago without being scanned and noticed by customs<<<
-----------------
$125k in $100 dollar bills fits quite nicely (with some limited room to spare) into an average child's school lunch box.

And I didn't read anywhere that the fellow had crossed through -any- Customs stations or borders.
------------------
>>>Not to mention how fishy it sounds to go to chicago to buy a produce truck<<<
------------------
I flew from Alaska to Southern California, and travelled by road to near the Mexican border, to pick up an old HD Electraglide, and drove it back up to Alaska.. Good thing that they didn't ask me to open my wallet... You go where the deal that you prefer is, or where the adventure is, or where ever your -personal- desire is best met.

But being eccentric and making decisions that another might not see as prudent or sensible is not a crime.. Or, it didn't used to be, anyway...
-----------------
>>>Doesn't matter if his story doesn't add up. The burden is on the US to prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise.

The fact that large sums of money are considered reasonable evidence of a crime is the scary part of this whole story. Seems to me there should definately be more proof to be considered reasonable.<<<
---------------
Abso-fucking-lutely!!! Except for the fact that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' isn't the standard in civil court, such as this case, I believe, was held in. I believe that the standard is 'a preponderance of the evidence.'

The revamping of the federal seizure laws in Amerikkka in the late 90s was -supposed- to have prevented this sort of bullshit.

But since, in a 'free country', money isn't traditionally considered contraband unto itself, if the fellow committed a crime, then where is the evidence of a crime? Surely having money (in a country that was originally based on free enterprise/laissez faire economics) is not now considered a criminal act unto itself? If it is, then I apparently missed the passage of that totalitarian law.

There's some boots that a person just shouldn't have to lick. If we'd been keeping our various governments in check over the years in the first place, we wouldn't even be reading about cases like this one, or perhaps not even a 'drug war.'

What happened to freedom??

moose eater

 

[Undrgrnd Armory]

Buy your ammo now.

 

[pipeline]

This is the same money we pay taxes on to obtain and to use, on top of the property we buy with it. Now we can't carry a certain amount of the thing we are paying to use multiple times over.

 

[Verite]

And it also appears that most of you were just as good as this guys lawyer in explaining his case and getting his money back.

 

[Guest]

You really have to wonder what his lawyers did on his behalf... did he get crappy court-appointed lawyers or what? Clearly he had done ok up until he got to the 8th circuit panel...

I should dig around and see if it's possible to find out more background information about the lower court decisions.

 

[Limeygreen]

I guess his last name had nothing to do with the grudge being a downpressor...

 

[Guest]

Fighting a federal seizure case with private attorneys can easily run into expenses well over the amount that was seized in this case. The prosecutors often -count- on this factor in their prosecutions of such cases.

I've -personally- been aware of a case in Pennsylvania where this factor was touted by the cops, who took -legal- money from the immediate relative of the target of a weed trafficking bust. In essence, smugly taunting the person whose cash was taken with a contrite, "So sue us..." (A multi-jurisdictional narcotics team of the early federal-state-county proto-type that was later solely dependent on seized assetts for their funding.)

moose eater

 

[Guest]

I apologize for going back to one of the issues in the case, but I was thinking about it and realized the police's claim that the dog alerting to the backseat of the car, where the cooler had been, damns the suspect as a drug-runner... doesn't really make much sense given the rest of the story as it's told...

No one seemed to suggest that Gonzolez had not picked-up the rental car in Chicago. If so, it seems to imply he hadn't transported drugs to Chicago in the car... and I can't imagine it'd be that easy to get on a plane with a cooler full of drugs...

 

[Guest]

Both the rental car and the money had previously been in the possession of others (i.e., residue in either case could've been left by a previous renter or handler), and, so, to hold the fellow accountable for 'residue' in -either- case, with absolutely no way of proving that the residue had anything at all to do with him simply defies common sense.

But I don't think that the cops and feds are pursuing 'common sense,' 'equity,' 'constitutionality,' or 'fairness' nearly as vigorously as they're pursuing $125k. ;^>)

>>> and I can't imagine it'd be that easy to get on a plane with a cooler full of drugs<<<

Not unless you're flying either Air America or AIA in days of old, in which case you'd have to worry about losing your 'cooler full of drugs' amongst theirs!! ;^>)

moose eater

 

[inflorescence]

Both the rental car and the money had previously been in the possession of others (i.e., residue in either case could've been left by a previous renter or handler), and, so, to hold the fellow accountable for 'residue' in -either- case, with absolutely no way of proving that the residue had anything at all to do with him simply defies common sense.

Exactly my point. The fact that law enforcement considers residue reasonable enough evidence that a crime has been commited is utmost extremist hysteria of the drug war mentality. Also, with MJ for instance, even residue alone is not a crime, it must be a "useable amount" for even a possession conviction so in this case the residue should not even be considered a crime unto itself, and the feds should have to prove a LINK from the residue to the actual drug load it came from.

This kind of thing also happens sometimes when people purchase a used car for instance and later a mechanic finds drugs in the wheel well or something, reports it and the innocent person is charged with a drug crime and/or has the car seized by the state/feds.

The ironic thing about this case is that if the guy just had a $100 then there probably wouldn't have been enough residue on just that amount for the dog to alert but when you add up that little amount of residue for each $100 in the whole load of cash then the amount of residue surpasses a threshold for the dog to alert.

 

[Guest]

Both the rental car and the money had previously been in the possession of others (i.e., residue in either case could've been left by a previous renter or handler), and, so, to hold the fellow accountable for 'residue' in -either- case, with absolutely no way of proving that the residue had anything at all to do with him simply defies common sense.

But I don't think that the cops and feds are pursuing 'common sense,' 'equity,' 'constitutionality,' or 'fairness' nearly as vigorously as they're pursuing $125k.

moose eater

Well, that was in a sense my point: I've been trying to add up the circumstances as described to get a sense of how the court could see some sort of "constructed" but otherwise non-existant proof. The impression that Gonzolez hadn't driven the car previous to leaving Chicago seemed to be a glaring oversight on the part of the court.

I certainly understand that the burden of proof is supposed to fall on the Feds, but it seems clear that there is a general trend toward extension of the courts' acceptance that LEO have some sort of "sixth sense" when it comes to intuiting a (non-drug) criminal situation: starting with Terry and Long and extending through to the 5th Circuit's decision in US v. Gould (which didn't involve drugs, but did involve circumstances under which warrantless home searches may be allowed).

 

[Guest]

>>>and the feds should have to prove a LINK from the residue to the actual drug load it came from<<<

Remember that the standard civil court threshhold of proof is a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

However, in revamping the seizure laws in the 90s, after nearly a decade and a half of 'seizure gone wild' bullshit, the intent of the reform legislation was to have the feds/state do a better job of -proving- that something was either a proceed resulting from a crime, or directly involved -in- a crime.

This particular case is blatantly a direct turning away from more balanced Congressional reforms by the very branch of government that is supposed to balance Congressional excesses!! Ain't -THAT- some irony!!

>>> but it seems clear that there is a general trend toward extension of the courts' acceptance that LEO have some sort of "sixth sense" when it comes to intuiting a (non-drug) criminal situation<<<

I think that it's part of our current social de-evolution.

Governments, in general, tend to make themselves more and more insulated from any outside control or restrictions over time, insulating themselves from having to accept limitations to their authority. It's a historically obvious mind-set of boundarilessness. One that accompanies nearly all empires when the 'nationalist/elitist ego' within the rulers gets large enough to assume that they are equivalent to some sort of GAWD, and "How dare(!!!) any of (us peasants) second-guess (their) wisdom??!!". Scalia suffers from it in obvious ways already. A toxic ego associated with elitist power.

It's a phase of totalitarianism that is historically followed, eventually, by the downfall of whatever empire is in question, often as a result of that very intolerance and lack of balance.

Eventually totalitarians bring their own passing..

"Sometimes you're the windshield. Sometimes you're the bug."

moose eater

 

[inflorescence]

Ok, I'm not a lawyer so bear with me. It first seemed to me like this case was a criminal matter

For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.

But then the case turned into a civil matter

United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency

But the reasoning of the 8th circuit is based on a criminal matter logic

"We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."

It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity,

So my question is what has been the civil crime that has been commited?
Under civil law is it illegal to have large sums of cash. And if not, and the only connection is to a drug crime shouldn't the drug crime have to be proven or at least withstand the same "reasonable doubt" standard as a drug crime?

What I'm saying is that it seems awfully easy for the feds to charge your "money" civilly just so they don't have to defend a criminal case full well knowing that the standard is lower "preponderance". Why isn't this tactic considered illegal?

 

[Guest]

>>>What I'm saying is that it seems awfully easy for the feds to charge your "money" civilly just so they don't have to defend a criminal case full well knowing that the standard is lower "preponderance". Why isn't this tactic considered illegal?<<<

Assett forfeiture is generally a civil matter, often times arising (though not always) from a criminal matter.

Your stated point above is a major reason why the Congress set about to reform these laws in the first place; abuse of the process and its intent.... and a lot of pissed off organized lobbying and activists..... and court cases..

You may recall that the Ninth Circuit in the early 90s found civil assett seizure and forfeiture in criminal cases to constitute double jeopardy, and therefore unconstitutional.

That ruling was over-turned by the SCOTUS, under then-Chief Justice Rehnquist (somewhat before the re-birthing of his conscience, apparently brought on by late-stage cancer) which stated that it was -not- double jeopardy, as (**paraphrasing here**) they weren't really punishing the owner of the property, as much as they were apprehending the property, for the property's part in a criminal action.(**) You'll note that they identify the cash as the defendant, rather than the dude..

Rehnquist cited Prohibiton-era law that enforced this concept as a 'legal fiction,' or something that is factually incorrect, but permitted under the law for various purposes anyway; often times something that directly benefits the govvy. (my defiition, not the ABA's).

But despite the Congressional reforms of the late 90s, that were supposed to bring us closer to requiring greater proof of criminal activity before seizure could take place, it still sometimes apparently amounts to trying to rip a nice, juicy, fatted pork chop out of a dog's mouth that hasn't eaten in a week. They just don't wanna' let go; especially in dealing with persons/issues that they oppose on principle.... such as pot smokers, other drug users, and entrepreneurs, for example...

moose eater

 

[SuperToker]

refrigerated trucks don't cost $124,700 first of all.

 

[Remailer]

lets all be real here for a min.

#1 if the guy had 125k cash , he had a good lawyer( who do you think made up this story.)
What ever the money was for, there is more.
Like the old saying goes " if you can afford the porshe you can afford the insurance. "

#2 COPS ARE DIRTY, he is lucky he is not dead and the news would have shown.. " Local Drug dealer SHOT DEAD when he pulled " A GUN " he had 100 tabs of X and 1200.00 cash. " Just to make it look good and the 124k is in someones pocket.

#3 Yes it sucks what happened. WASH YOUR MONEY!


#4 NOTE TO SELF..... Dont Speed when having
A. Drugs
B. 125k in cash
C. Mother or father in car...( They will get pissed, it does not matter your age)

#5 Smoke one right now as you read this.

 

[Remailer]

And another thing....

there is always a paper trail with that kind of money, Even if is friends were investing, they have paper trail, if the guy had just won the lotto he would have proof, if he wan a Legal gamble, got a loan, even personal from another friend there is always a paper trail, If you cant provide one.... your screwed. I'm 100% sure if the guy could go to the judge with a letter from the bank saying this person just took out a 125k business loan, his money would have been givenback right then and there.

 

[Guest]

>>>there is always a paper trail with that kind of money<<<

That's not always true, Remailer.

In this instant-gratification world that functions on plastic credit cards, and castles made of sand, many persons would have a trail for such amounts of cash.

But for many persons who have either socked away their money incrementally over the years, whether into a shoe box, or whatever (a fairly comon practice with old-timers), they don't always have a paper trail. I know one old barber near here who saved up over $250,000.00 doing hair-cuts and repairing and re-selling old cars.

A gold miner up here where I live, might have receipts dating back over the years from small sales of gold that have led to a substantial 'piggy bank,' but that miner might just as easily might've lost or gotten rid of such receipts over time.

And there are lots of other persons who do a legal cash business that lacks any serious paperwork, other than their reporting on their quarterly earnings statements, assuming that they report honestly.

If the cash was legal (and I'm not saying that his story was made-up or true), he wouldn't necessarily mind making some time on the road-way. If the money in your pocket was legal, the last thing on your mind might be a cop in the Land of the Free taking your savings away from you.

As far as the total amount of money is concerned, it was alleged to be the mutually-contributed money of at least several different persons.

The burden of proof is supposed to be on the state, and I don't think that they even came close to meeting it... but they got to keep the jing anyway... And -that- wreaks of a corrupt system in my opinion.

moose eater