U.S. Currency is Illegal

[Kest]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp

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.

[/FONT]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.

[/FONT]

 

[|3_32]

Good thing I live in England, I'm forever leaving pocket change in the boot.

 

[Kaoii]

From what I understand, it is illegal in the United States and has been for quite some time to carry over 10,000$ in cash.

 

[Incognitus]

Can I just clarify something:

You're allowed to carry arms, ammunition etc around with you but 10,000$ in cash - THAT's illegal?

I mean... okay I can see some logic (There's a lot of nasty papercuts to be had there) but still.



It's interesting though: Some of that money has probably been drugs-ring adjacent for the dogs to react like that. One of those things that kind of makes you wonder where your money has been, what it has brought, and who has used it, isn't it?

 

[Kaoii]

It's illegal to carry around the $10,000 as much as it is to give $10,000 to a friend without being heavily taxed for it.

 

[Incognitus]

So where is the arbitary line? Can I give my friend $9,999 dollars and not be taxed for it? Am I allowed to carry that amount around legally?

 

[ryanwh]

Thank god the Judicial sector is still competent when all other branches are faulty and seemingly corrupt.

 

[SephirothSpawn]

God Bless America!

 

[Ceroscuro]

The question is: Why would you ever have that much money in cash. This is something I really do not care about because... It just wouldn't happen. Not to me at least. Write a freakin check.

 

[Ceroscuro]

Just stop speaking.

 

[$t3v0]

The question is: Why would you ever have that much money in cash. This is something I really do not care about because... It just wouldn't happen. Not to me at least. Write a freakin check.

You could be transferring money from one bank to another via an "after-hours" deposit. I've been with a friend when he's been carrying £7,000...so it isn't all that surprising.

~ $t3v0

 

[Lene]

Obviously the whole point is there's a good chance anyone caring more than 10,000 in cash may be using it to buy drugs. Or maybe it is counterfiet money. It is out of the ordinary to carry that much cash around for a reason.

And if the guy really wanted to buy something to start a business, he can write a check. There's no reason why a reputable business would not accept a check for that much money.

 

[Erk]

I think it's absurd... whatever happened to the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty'? The carrying around of large sums of money may be unusual, and a practice often found among shadier folks, but that shouldn't make it illegal. That's the earmark of a totalitarian state... controlling normally harmless actions because they are practices commonly used by criminal elements.

 

[Erk]

I try not to pay attention for the most part. The politics are beauratic and corrupt, the elections are a farce, and the people are immensely proud of the system. It is pretty odd. Economics are very protectionist, but more as a matter of personal choice than government policy; it is not hard to import foreign goods at competitive price, but nobody buys them.

The entire mindset of the country is very different in economic terms... for example, the ratio of personal expenditure to personal savings is more or less an inverse of north america.

Also, the country is the very definition of a nanny state. Not the kind of nanny state that canada and britain are accused of being, but a genuine nanny state where personal safety is valued so highly as to be utterly absurd, and the government is constantly looking out for the slightest little dangerous thing. That is at least the superficial end of things. But we are digressing, and I could talk for many many hours about japanese economics and politics - it is a tired topic here.

 

[Title Loan Man]

I try not to pay attention for the most part. The politics are beauratic and corrupt, the elections are a farce, and the people are immensely proud of the system. It is pretty odd. Economics are very protectionist, but more as a matter of personal choice than government policy; it is not hard to import foreign goods at competitive price, but nobody buys them.

The entire mindset of the country is very different in economic terms... for example, the ratio of personal expenditure to personal savings is more or less an inverse of north america.

Also, the country is the very definition of a nanny state. Not the kind of nanny state that canada and britain are accused of being, but a genuine nanny state where personal safety is valued so highly as to be utterly absurd, and the government is constantly looking out for the slightest little dangerous thing. That is at least the superficial end of things. But we are digressing, and I could talk for many many hours about japanese economics and politics - it is a tired topic here.

Wow, that is the exact opposite impressionI had of Japan (in all of my zero trips there ). Well, I did kind of view them as soft, but not to the point of paranoia.

 

[Kest]

This thread was much more interesting than the one in the board I found it on.

(My rule of thumb on these is to skip posting my own opinion so it doesn't distract others from the topic.)

 

[BlackStaticWolf]

From what I understand, it is illegal in the United States and has been for quite some time to carry over 10,000$ in cash.

You understand wrong. You can carry as much cash as you want. It's kind of stupid to carry that much, and it is suspicious, but it is not a crime.

It's illegal to carry around the $10,000 as much as it is to give $10,000 to a friend without being heavily taxed for it.

Again, wrong.


RE: The story
The fact that Gonzolez had over $100,000 in cash is evidence of nothing standing alone. The government officers failed to produce or find any significant evidence linking the money with criminal activity.

It's a pity that the higher court likely won't hear the next appeal. This decision directly contradicts precedent and Judge Lay is absolutely right in his dissenting opinion. I'm just glad that I'm not in the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction, because that was a stupid decision.

 

[ryanwh]

Yeah, if this was some yuppy cracker it wouldnt be a story. He was pulled over for being Hispanic in a "hate immigrant" zone.

 

[Kest]

Something from the other thread:

But how the fuck do you convict a guy on just a suspicion? *sigh*

They didn't, as far as I know. They just confiscated the money.

It's part of the War on Drugs(TM)

Ever since Bush #1 was in office, if you are found with over $8000 or so dollars in your car they can confiscate it. It is automatically assumed to be drug money. No suspicion in necessary.

Furthermore, since the person is not charged at all and it is only the money/property that is 'incarcerated,' no human or civil rights are involved, and thus no presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In order to regain the money/property, one must prove that the money/property is not guilty. (That's right, you must prove a negative.) Of course court and other costs are not reimbursed even in the rare event that the money/property is proven innocent and regained.

And if that were not bad enough, the police district that makes the seizure, the district attorney's office that prosecutes the case, and the court that authorizes everything *all get a cut of the confiscated monies or proceeds from sale of confiscated property.*

Can you say conflict of interest with no checks or protection of rights?

And these seizures have actually been occurring around the nation at a rate of several thousand per year since, as OmnipotentEntity noted, Bush #1 was in office.

Eh? First I've heard of this stuff...

 

[BlackStaticWolf]

Something from the other thread:


Eh? First I've heard of this stuff...

Probably... because everything they posted is... fundamentally incorrect. I'm no fan of the chimp, but asset seizures like that have been going on for a lot longer than Bush has been in office. Also, there is not now, nor has there ever been an automatic assumption that it's drug money.

PS: And Deadly Sin has NO idea how forfeiture cases work.