Are large sums of cash illegal?
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Discuss, Drugs, LawApparently, yes.
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.
Thoughts?
This entry was posted on Monday, August 21st, 2006 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Discuss, Drugs, Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 21st, 2006 at 5:24 pm
I don’t know whether or not to believe this guys story. But I’d rather he successfully do a drug deal than create the precedent that simply having a large sum of money in cash is a crime. This ruling sucks.
August 21st, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Hoo-rah police state. Yeah, driving around with a briefcase full of cash is suspicious, however:
It also seems shady. I mean, you pull a guy over for speeding, and then ask whats in his briefcase? Sure, his name may not be on the rental car, but the subsequent explanation for his story apparently has no holes. Police, as far as I’m concerned, should only be getting money from government appropriations and actual crimes, not money they confiscated from a smelly old rental car and a brirfcase, with no evidence of any malicious activity by the person in possession of the briefcase other than speeding. I speed all the time, in Massachusetts it is called “going with the flow of traffic”, which is also traveling at 70-80 MPH (on a slow day).
August 21st, 2006 at 5:56 pm
I agree that the circumstances are suspicious. But even if his story is full of holes, shouldn’t the government have to actually prove a crime before they can confiscate property?
August 21st, 2006 at 6:32 pm
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! IN CIVICS CLASS MY CHILDHOOD TEACHERS TAUGHT US ABOUT THIS CRAZY CONCEPT CALLED “BURDEN OF PROOF.” THIS MAN COMMITTED NO CRIME. THE GOVERNMENT HAD NO EVIDENCE THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. MR. GONZOLEZ WAS GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. NOW HIS LIFE IS DESTROYED.
August 21st, 2006 at 8:13 pm
The Criminal Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 establishes that the gov’t only has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So the standard for gov’t forfeiture is the same standard for the personal injury attorney proving a slip ‘n fall — not real high.
But look people, this is nothing new. The gov’t has been taking property for a long damn time. Forfeiture law started with admiralty law. The War on Drugs has merely added a huge revenue source to tempt law enforcement.
The War on Drugs has perverted, twisted, and deranged this country this countries relationship with its most prized values. It has exacerbated racial hostilities. It creates criminals were no criminals would otherwise exist. It creates a criminal market. It polarizes the governed from the government. It has militarized the police, who use to be part of the community. In every respect, the War on Drugs is a HUGE failure. This is just one small example.
It is a travesty, far worse than the War in Iraq — American citizens are turned into insurgents in our country. Overturn CAFRA!
Please, educate yourself by reading the opinion itself. Do Not Rely on Secondary Sources. http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opns/opFrame.html
August 21st, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Thanks, Dos. I meant to ask for your opinion.
BTW, the court’s opinion is also reachable (in pdf form) from my link.
This would seem take “preponderance of evidence” to a new height of silliness, doesn’t it? No drugs found, no evidence of a crime to which to connect the money.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:26 pm
So much for the presumption of innocence.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Thanks for the link Dos (I missed yours the first time I read this Sean). Seeing how they built up this ruling scares the hell out of me. Each judgement they sited was like a step down a path that I really don’t want to see this country take. If it takes 0 evidence and some suspicion to confiscate $125K, what’s next?
August 21st, 2006 at 9:49 pm
“Preponderance of evidence.” Does that mean the number of barks by the police dog?
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:54 am
I’ve been a member of the FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights) listserv for several years and I have recently started doing more criminal defense of late. Horror stories like you couldn’t believe are abound. This was just cash, but the Feds & states routinely take homes, real property, automobiles, boats, you name it. It is fascinating economics as the law enforcement agencies get a cut of the loot that they seize and the courts forfeit. So here is what we have: An incentive system for law enforcement officers to bust people. Now I find that pernicious in terms of ticket quotas, but forfeiture, as Justin would say…Jeeeeeeeesuz. Is it any kind of deterrent to the Pablo’s out there? Don’t all laugh at once. If anything, I would bet, that the scale of drug sales from any given drug dealer increases after forfeiture to compensate for the lost property. It encourages cash transfers, off shore banking, money laundering - basically, forfeiture makes it HARDER to investigate the drug market, because it encourages drug dealers not to use the normal channels of commerce.
August 25th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Here’s a case in Hew Hampshire where the Defendant was ACQUITTED of the charges and the NH Supreme Court of Assholes ruled that the police could keep the CD’s they seized from the Defendant which were the subject of the crime.
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Police+property:+It%E2%80%99s+finders+keepers+in+NH&articleId=c2807a58-75ed-4972-8ab9-caec6bbbb979
January 26th, 2007 at 1:00 am
can someone actually explain what freedom means i cant seem to understand teh difference between usa and other countries