Suspicion is good enough for drug warriors

Wildcard

Moderator
Another bad guy down, way to go, you fearless drug warriors.....

Posted on Fri, Aug. 18, 2006


Court rules 2003 money seizure correct despite no drugs found

CHUCK BROWN
Associated Press

OMAHA, Neb. - Authorities were correct to assume nearly $125,000 they seized from a California man's car during a traffic stop may have been connected to narcotics trafficking, despite finding no drugs in the vehicle, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The ruling from the three-judge panel overturned an earlier decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Thalken in Nebraska in the case of Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez. A state trooper stopped Gonzolez for speeding on Interstate 80 on May 28, 2003.

Gonzolez's lawyer, Donald Yates of San Diego, said they would appeal the ruling. He said the government is treating unfairly people who don't have credit or bank accounts and are forced to do business in cash.

"They do not allow for anybody to have a lifestyle different from the average person in Nebraska," Yates said.

Gonzolez was driving a car that he told officers had been rented by a man named "Luis." Gonzolez also said he had never been arrested and that he was not carrying drugs, guns or large amounts of money.

After Gonzolez consented, the car was searched and $124,700 in cash was found in a cooler in the back seat. Authorities also learned that Gonzolez had once been arrested for driving while intoxicated and that the person registered as having rented the car was not named "Luis."

A drug dog later detected the scent of narcotics on the money and seat where the money was found.

Gonzolez testified that he lied about having the money because he believed that carrying large sums of money might be illegal. He said he secreted it inside the cooler because he feared it could be stolen while he was on the road.

He planned on using the money to buy a refrigerated truck in Chicago, Gonzolez said, but after arriving there by airplane from California he learned the truck had been sold. He decided to rent a car and drive back to California but needed someone else to rent the car because he had no credit card, he said.

Gonzolez also said he didn't tell officers about his previous arrest because he didn't think driving while intoxicated was a crime.

A federal judge in Nebraska said the evidence was not strong enough to link the money to drug trafficking, but the 8th Circuit Court on Thursday disagreed.

"We believe that the evidence as a whole demonstrates ... that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense," the court wrote. "We have adopted the commonsense view that bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking."

In dissent, Judge Donald Lay said the evidence provided was not enough to conclude the money was used in drug trafficking.

"At most, the evidence presented suggests the money seized may have been involved in some illegal activity - activity that is incapable of being ascertained on the record before us," Lay wrote. "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."



http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15310257.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
 
I really liked Judge Lay's take on the situation. It's fairly obvious that Gonzolez was involved in some form of illegal activity. However, lacking any (real) evidence he should be presumed innocent...and possession of large amounts of money alone should not be considered real evidence.

I especially liked that he acknowledged that for a dog to detect drug residue in a rental vehicle should not be considered evidence of a crime. Nor should the presence of drug residue on cash, which by its very nature should be presumed to have circulated through an unknown number of hands.

This whole thing should have been open and shut in Gonzolez's favor, were we not living in Ameristan. Nowadays if you're doing anything out of the ordinary, be prepared to be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Again, I'm sure (as most of us are) that this guy was probably involved in some sort of illegal activity...but I really miss the days when the authorities were expected to prove that.
 
Juan, sure he was. He was speeding; at least, that's what the LEO got him for. That's his only known crime (if a crime it is). A $125K fine for speeding seems a bit... excessive, no?
 
Juan, sure he was. He was speeding; at least, that's what the LEO got him for. That's his only known crime (if a crime it is). A $125K fine for speeding seems a bit... excessive, no?

Well, that and making a false statement to a police officer.

My favorite part from the article has to be this:

Gonzolez testified that he lied about having the money because he believed that carrying large sums of money might be illegal.

Apparently it was. It'd almost be funny if it wasn't so horribly frightening.
 
IF they guy was carrying alot of moeny he should have said so when asked. You can carry any amount of money you want in this country as long as you dont lie about it.

SW
 
Then why was it seized?

You can carry any amount of money you want in this country as long as you dont lie about it.

Incorrect. Carrying (or rather, attempting to carry) $10,000 cash through Customs is a felony, whether you lie about it or not.
 
"IF they guy was carrying alot of moeny he should have said so when asked. You can carry any amount of money you want in this country as long as you dont lie about it."






Actually in Texas, if you have over 500,000 in cash on your person, it is a felony.
 
You can carry any amount of money you want in this country as long as you dont lie about it.
A) If you're carrying alot of YOUR money, why should you have to admit/explain that to any man on earth?
B) As to the law you seem to be referencing: Source, please.
Rich
 
Lying to the police ain't a good idea.

This citizen was up to no good. - Appeals court had the sense to determine that.

After alls said and done, his lawyer will end up with most of it....:D

That's the American way after all.

12-34hom.
 
This citizen was up to no good

Clang.

Wrong, Charlie.

Sometimes they take a hundred grand from someone like me as I've reported elsewhere here. Sometimes they take a hundred grand from someone simply looking to get a good deal on real estate by showing he means business.

Sometimes they take a hundred grand from someone who you might say "deserved it"; because he chooses to hold his OWN money in his OWN pocket.

This "defendant" was not charged with "Income Tax Evasion". Would you not think that the first line of prosecution? No, he was charged with having too much of HIS OWN money on his person. The ASSUMPTION that it was illegal need never be adjudicated for you or anyone else who judges people by your own behavior. Is that what you want America to become? A nation where you can take a man's possessions simply because you don't like the way he comports himself? Because he doesn't have the proper paperwork; no "crime" having been charged? Is that the America that makes you proud of living in the Most Free Nation on the Face of the Earth?

Do you enjoy the concept of The State taking Money/Land/Farms/IRA's with absolutely zero charges of CRIME?

Not me.

"Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez" was never a party to the suit, if you understand the nature of "US Govt vs $100,000 in US Govt Funds" cases. He had to fight his way in as a "party of interest" just to be heard! Would it have made a difference to us if his name was Biff Howell, III; prominent WASP, Omaha attorney? A man of "eccentricity" as our kindest neighbors think of GUN OWNERS like you and I?
Don't answer these questions publicly. Just think about it.

I personally couldn't care if he was Carlos the Jackal. AT LEAST CHARGE THE CRIME or let the man go with his possessions. That's how the entire "Drug Lord Confiscation" law was first envisioned. We wanted their villas, and yachts and jets....What are we doing with that "noble" law today? We're taking the money that cannot be proved for their refrigerated trucks and setting "Them" free! Silly Us.

Rich
 
Incorrect. Carrying (or rather, attempting to carry) $10,000 cash through Customs is a felony, whether you lie about it or not.
Actually in Texas, if you have over 500,000 in cash on your person, it is a felony.

Why!?:barf: What is the reasoning behind this? Where is the logic?:confused: :mad:
 
Omega blood, there doesn't have to be any reason or logic. Most laws and "codes" look like Snively Whiplash wrote them.:(

badbob
 
I also heard that if you withdraw over a certain amount in cash, the bank calls LE. Then LE pays you a visit. Don't know if it's true or not.
 
If you deposit over "X" amount(I don't remember if it is 5 or 10k currently) in cash you have forms you must fill out at the bank and the transaction is reported to the Feds. They may or may not follow up on it.
 
Anyone find it odd that Gonzalez says he didn't admit to the drunk driving arrest because "he didn't think driving while intoxicated was a crime"? :confused:

He was arrested for something, and then later did not think that the thing he had been arrested for was a crime?


The guy and his money may very well have been associated with drug crime. That is entirely separate from whether it was proper for his money to have been taken from him, and I agree that it was NOT.

I've read of and seen far too many horror stories detailing the rampant abuse of seizure law in this country. It is a horrendous cancer that no one is talking much about.


-azurefly
 
Many years ago, when I was much less informed and naive, my wife and I went on a month's holiday. We did an auto-tour of the western States. We took with us a large sum of cash. Used a credit card to secure that nights lodging at a destination, but paid for everything in cash. I also took a handgun with us for personal protection... Hidden under my car seat.

I didn't know that traveling with large amounts of cash was a drug crime. Nor did I know that traveling with a concealed weapon was a crime.

Today, I shudder to think what would have happened to us, had we ever been stopped by the police!

The civil asset forfeiture laws that were amended to the RICO statutes, have their place. But as with any law that can be abused, this one is. Various government entities have found the seizure laws to be a lucrative way to fund their operations without having to increase taxes to the locals. This makes for corruption, as can be seen in this case.

Do I think this guy was up to no good? Yes, I do. But without some tangible proof as to his guilt, his property should never come into question. Unfortunately, the way the laws are written, it is the property itself that is charged with a "crime" and not the owner of the property.

Asset forfeiture laws are nothing less than a means to punish the guilty without the expense of having to go to the criminal courts. It simply bypasses the criminal system altogether. And that is where the abuse comes into play. As the title to the thread indicates, mere suspicion is enough to seize a persons assets. It is then up to the individual to first prove standing and then to prove the property was acquired in a legitimate fashion. The state need prove nothing, only allege that the property was acquired by the result of some criminal action. The fact that the owner was never charged with a crime in the first place has nothing whatsoever to do with the charges against the property.
 
One more example why I will untrain my 4 year old daughter when she is an adult with regards to LEOs. Right now she is to trust them becasue on average it is safer for her to do so.

When she is older though I will teach her NOT to cooperate with them on anything unless there is a warrant produced. They are not on our side, they are on their side. Most may be out there "trying to help people" but at the same time when it comes right down to it it is LEO/Gov't vs. Everyone Else.
 
Omega blood, there doesn't have to be any reason or logic. Most laws and "codes" look like Snively Whiplash wrote them.
Yeah, him or

cecilmad.jpg
 
Back
Top