[Infowarrior] - Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

[Richard Forno]

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.

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

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.

Source: PDF File US v. $124,700 (US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit,
8/19/2006)