• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

A

acemcmac

Lifer
Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime
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.

US Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuitA 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.

Link
Click to expand...

The Newspaper (A great item for your RSS reader)

I think I'm going to be sick to my stomach. Land of the free my ass.
 
That's a pretty stupid ruling, but seriously, how often do people carry over $100K in their cars for LEGAL reasons?
 
Originally posted by: Xanis
That's a pretty stupid ruling, but seriously, how often do people carry over $100K in their cars for LEGAL reasons?
Click to expand...

Well, you aren't free to do it now, even if you want to or do have legitimate reasons :roll:
 
Originally posted by: Xanis
That's a pretty stupid ruling, but seriously, how often do people carry over $100K in their cars for LEGAL reasons?
Click to expand...

There are probably very few reasons but our legal system is based on a presumption of innocence.

 
Originally posted by: RKS
Originally posted by: Xanis
That's a pretty stupid ruling, but seriously, how often do people carry over $100K in their cars for LEGAL reasons?
Click to expand...

There are probably very few reasons but our legal system is based on a presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...

Maybe where you live it is, but I'm a realist😛
 
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: Xanis
That's a pretty stupid ruling, but seriously, how often do people carry over $100K in their cars for LEGAL reasons?
Click to expand...

Well, you aren't free to do it now, even if you want to or do have legitimate reasons :roll:
Click to expand...
Sure you are. And if you get stopped, don't do what this guy did:
1. Lie to the cop about having a large sum of cash in the car
2. Lie to the cop about having any arrests
3. Lie to the cop about who rented the car for you
4. Lie to the cop about where the money came from after they find it.
5. Have a drug-sniffing dog trigger on your money, but not on the cop's money.
6. Be a lying-ass drug smuggler.


I will agree that the government's case here is pretty thin, but the guy could have avoided this by telling the truth.
Oh, and not being guilty, regardless of what evidence there really is.
 
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: Xanis
That's a pretty stupid ruling, but seriously, how often do people carry over $100K in their cars for LEGAL reasons?
Click to expand...

Well, you aren't free to do it now, even if you want to or do have legitimate reasons :roll:
Click to expand...
Lie to the cop about where the money came from after they find it.
5. Have a drug-sniffing dog trigger on your money, but not on the cop's money.
Click to expand...


Every dumbass on the planet knows about this though Text
 
You must not have read what he was saying very closely.

Pacfanweb was trying to imply that telling the truth and being a law-abiding citizen is apparently a bad thing in this situation. He then proceeded to tell us all the bad/wrong things we could be/do in order to escape detection.
 
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: Xanis
That's a pretty stupid ruling, but seriously, how often do people carry over $100K in their cars for LEGAL reasons?
Click to expand...

Well, you aren't free to do it now, even if you want to or do have legitimate reasons :roll:
Click to expand...
Sure you are. And if you get stopped, don't do what this guy did:
1. Lie to the cop about having a large sum of cash in the car
2. Lie to the cop about having any arrests
3. Lie to the cop about who rented the car for you
4. Lie to the cop about where the money came from after they find it.
5. Have a drug-sniffing dog trigger on your money, but not on the cop's money.
6. Be a lying-ass drug smuggler.


I will agree that the government's case here is pretty thin, but the guy could have avoided this by telling the truth.
Oh, and not being guilty, regardless of what evidence there really is.
Click to expand...

So you think he is guilty, despite the evidence? I'll agree, he shouldn't have lied to the cop about having the money, about having a record, etc. However, just because a damned dog barks at me shouldn't mean automatic conviction for drugs, even with that kind of money, UNLESS DRUGS ARE ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE SEARCH!!! I'm sure those dogs are smart and well trained, but they are just dogs with the brains the size of a walnut!!! I'm sorry, but any animal that eats its own crap, or another animal's crap, shouldn't have the ability to get me convicted in a court of law.

If I want to carry around over $100K in cash, there shouldn't be a problem with that sort of behavior. As long as I'm paying my taxes, what business does the government have in saying what form I keep my money?!? I should be able to keep it in the form of rolls of dimes, or even seas of pennies if I so choose.

Stuff like this gets me so steamed... People wonder why I vote libertarian.

R
 
Wow, just... HTF do they justify this? I've heard of BS verdicts, but this one is pretty close to the top. It's times like this that I wonder how some people manage to get themselves dressed in the morning with such ineffective minds.
 
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: Xanis
That's a pretty stupid ruling, but seriously, how often do people carry over $100K in their cars for LEGAL reasons?
Click to expand...

Well, you aren't free to do it now, even if you want to or do have legitimate reasons :roll:
Click to expand...

no, only people in the 8th circus, ert, circuit aren't free to do it now. everyone else can just go on their merry way.
 
Originally posted by: Sqube
You must not have read what he was saying very closely.

Pacfanweb was trying to imply that telling the truth and being a law-abiding citizen is apparently a bad thing in this situation. He then proceeded to tell us all the bad/wrong things we could be/do in order to escape detection.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was implying that actually telling the truth would have gotten this guy right back on the road.
If anyone bothers to read the actual court document, he lied to the cops about pretty much everything during the bust.
Now he claims he was "just scared", and I'll admit the evidence is thin, but the bottom line is if he just was up front about the whole thing to start with, the cop likely would have let him go.
 
Originally posted by: rgwalt
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: Xanis
That's a pretty stupid ruling, but seriously, how often do people carry over $100K in their cars for LEGAL reasons?
Click to expand...

Well, you aren't free to do it now, even if you want to or do have legitimate reasons :roll:
Click to expand...
Sure you are. And if you get stopped, don't do what this guy did:
1. Lie to the cop about having a large sum of cash in the car
2. Lie to the cop about having any arrests
3. Lie to the cop about who rented the car for you
4. Lie to the cop about where the money came from after they find it.
5. Have a drug-sniffing dog trigger on your money, but not on the cop's money.
6. Be a lying-ass drug smuggler.


I will agree that the government's case here is pretty thin, but the guy could have avoided this by telling the truth.
Oh, and not being guilty, regardless of what evidence there really is.
Click to expand...

So you think he is guilty, despite the evidence? I'll agree, he shouldn't have lied to the cop about having the money, about having a record, etc. However, just because a damned dog barks at me shouldn't mean automatic conviction for drugs, even with that kind of money, UNLESS DRUGS ARE ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE SEARCH!!! I'm sure those dogs are smart and well trained, but they are just dogs with the brains the size of a walnut!!! I'm sorry, but any animal that eats its own crap, or another animal's crap, shouldn't have the ability to get me convicted in a court of law.

If I want to carry around over $100K in cash, there shouldn't be a problem with that sort of behavior. As long as I'm paying my taxes, what business does the government have in saying what form I keep my money?!? I should be able to keep it in the form of rolls of dimes, or even seas of pennies if I so choose.

Stuff like this gets me so steamed... People wonder why I vote libertarian.

R
Click to expand...

READ THE COURT DOCUMENT. He was not convicted of drugs. He repeatedly lied to the cops during the stop, and what my post implied was that if the subject had simply told the TRUTH from the start, he wouldn't have been in this situation.
But chances are, he was lying not because he was "scared", but because he was actually a drug smuggler. Otherwise, why lie? I don't buy the "he was scared" line, and neither did the court.
 
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: rgwalt
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: Xanis
That's a pretty stupid ruling, but seriously, how often do people carry over $100K in their cars for LEGAL reasons?
Click to expand...

Well, you aren't free to do it now, even if you want to or do have legitimate reasons :roll:
Click to expand...
Sure you are. And if you get stopped, don't do what this guy did:
1. Lie to the cop about having a large sum of cash in the car
2. Lie to the cop about having any arrests
3. Lie to the cop about who rented the car for you
4. Lie to the cop about where the money came from after they find it.
5. Have a drug-sniffing dog trigger on your money, but not on the cop's money.
6. Be a lying-ass drug smuggler.


I will agree that the government's case here is pretty thin, but the guy could have avoided this by telling the truth.
Oh, and not being guilty, regardless of what evidence there really is.
Click to expand...

So you think he is guilty, despite the evidence? I'll agree, he shouldn't have lied to the cop about having the money, about having a record, etc. However, just because a damned dog barks at me shouldn't mean automatic conviction for drugs, even with that kind of money, UNLESS DRUGS ARE ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE SEARCH!!! I'm sure those dogs are smart and well trained, but they are just dogs with the brains the size of a walnut!!! I'm sorry, but any animal that eats its own crap, or another animal's crap, shouldn't have the ability to get me convicted in a court of law.

If I want to carry around over $100K in cash, there shouldn't be a problem with that sort of behavior. As long as I'm paying my taxes, what business does the government have in saying what form I keep my money?!? I should be able to keep it in the form of rolls of dimes, or even seas of pennies if I so choose.

Stuff like this gets me so steamed... People wonder why I vote libertarian.

R
Click to expand...

READ THE COURT DOCUMENT. He was not convicted of drugs. He repeatedly lied to the cops during the stop, and what my post implied was that if the subject had simply told the TRUTH from the start, he wouldn't have been in this situation.
But chances are, he was lying not because he was "scared", but because he was actually a drug smuggler. Otherwise, why lie? I don't buy the "he was scared" line, and neither did the court.
Click to expand...

So since the guy was found NOT GUILTY, the cops should still be able to keep the money? That's BS. Why would he not lie, he has poor english skills, didn't rent the car himself due to the lack of credit, carrying large sums of money and doesn't want to make the cops suspicious....
 
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: acemcmac
Originally posted by: Xanis
That's a pretty stupid ruling, but seriously, how often do people carry over $100K in their cars for LEGAL reasons?
Click to expand...

Well, you aren't free to do it now, even if you want to or do have legitimate reasons :roll:
Click to expand...
Sure you are. And if you get stopped, don't do what this guy did:
1. Lie to the cop about having a large sum of cash in the car
2. Lie to the cop about having any arrests
3. Lie to the cop about who rented the car for you
4. Lie to the cop about where the money came from after they find it.
5. Have a drug-sniffing dog trigger on your money, but not on the cop's money.
6. Be a lying-ass drug smuggler.


I will agree that the government's case here is pretty thin, but the guy could have avoided this by telling the truth.
Oh, and not being guilty, regardless of what evidence there really is.
Click to expand...

1. it's none of his ****** business how much money he had...besides, would you tell a cop you had 124K? what's to stop him from taking it and sending you on your way?
2. i guess you missed the part about him having no significant criminal history, huh? :rolleyes;
3. where does it say he lied to the cop about who rented the car for him? after reading the pdf, that was ommitted in the article
4. for that matter, where does it say he lied about the source of the money? that was also omitted
5. a good percentage of currency in circulation has drug residue on it, not to mention it's a ****** rental car that god knows how many people had driven previously
6. now this is just stupid

and wtf was he guilty of, exactly?

you're a ****** communist

EDITED after reading the pdf
 
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
So since the guy was found NOT GUILTY, the cops should still be able to keep the money? That's BS. Why would he not lie, he has poor english skills, didn't rent the car himself due to the lack of credit, carrying large sums of money and doesn't want to make the cops suspicious....
Click to expand...
Read the court document. And yes, the govt. can keep the money. Read the document.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top