Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

[shemp]

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)

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."

So, in effect, they are saying that U.S. currency is not legal tender if you are carrying large sums of it? That the act of possession of a large sum of cash is automatically evidence of drug activity?

WHAT A LOAD OF HOT, STEAMING, FECKING BULLCHIT!!!

I swear, our government every day does everything it can to drive more and more people to extremism. I have no idea whether or not this guy was involved in drug activity, but this essentially says that you are not safe from government theft carrying ANY amount of cash. Who determines what is a "large sum"?

I sincerely hope that there are some judges on the next appeals level who have something filling their skulls other than marbles.

[Esperdome]

I hope so too, but I doubt it.

This is good hard cash they can fight their war on terror and drugs with.

Funny thing, if you don't have enough money on your person, you can be arrested as a vagrant.

[Mephisto]

Well this is likely something I'll never have to worry about, not having large amounts of cash - but what I wonder is how they're going to determine that the money is drug-related and not simply the money required to buy a week's supply of gasoline?

[webfusion]

I rarely go anywhere on a long trip with less than $3000. in cash. ('long' in my lexicon being over 100 miles).

Almost all US Currency is tainted with drug residue.
http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp


I will endeavor now to always have the withdrawal receipt from my bank for that three grand, just in case...

[Mephisto]

I rarely go anywhere on a long trip with less than $3000. in cash. ('long' in my lexicon being over 100 miles).

Almost all US Currency is tainted with drug residue.
http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp


I will endeavor now to always have the withdrawal receipt from my bank for that three grand, just in case...

Yeah, but think about how you're going to prove that your money wasn't earmarked to BUY drugs. There is no way around it, you're a suspect and to prove it we've got the right to listen in on any conversations we want anywhere. ;)

[JamesDillon]

I find myself disagreeing with this opinion, but it is important to note that it isn't quite as ridiculous as the news article cited in the opening post makes it sound. The court cited a confluence of suspicious circumstances leading it to conclude that the money was drug-related, not just the fact that the man had a large amount of cash on him. (It is, by the way, necessary to file a form with the I.R.S. when carrying more than $10,000 in cash; the purpose of this regulation is to inhibit money laundering). That said, I don't think the government has really established by a preponderance of the evidence that the money in question was related to drug trafficking.

Unfortunately, the "next level of review" would be the United States Supreme Court, which most likely will not hear this case. Unless the Eighth Circuit decides to reconsider the matter en banc (also unlikely), this opinion will probably be the last word on the matter. This is very unfortunate because it seems like these guys are getting screwed out of a substantial amount of money on the basis of a minor regulatory offense-- and one has to wonder whether the fact that they are Hispanic has anything to do with it.

[CaptainManacles]

Wow, I guess I'll think twice about carrying 3 people's life savings around in a cooler, driving across country in a car rented under someone else's name, lying to police about possesion of the money, who the money came from, who rented the car, not providing a plausible explaination for what the money was being used for, lying about why I had rented a car, and rubbing the money in some drugs just to fool any drug sniffing drugs. What a wacky wacky country some of us live in. A guy can't even break a half a dozen laws without getting harrassed by the man

[webfusion]

(It is, by the way, necessary to file a form with the I.R.S. when carrying more than $10,000 in cash; the purpose of this regulation is to inhibit money laundering).

Can you cite this regulation?

My understanding was that transactions had to be reported -- not merely carrying a large amount of cash.

[AmateurScientist]

Can you cite this regulation?

My understanding was that transactions had to be reported -- not merely carrying a large amount of cash.

That's correct.

AS

[SteveGrenard]

Can someone also please tell us why a second hand refrigerated truck costs $125,000?
Are such things that expensive? And if so, did the people whose cash it was provide evidence such as advertisements or a name of the truck's seller? Or the location of the truck or other evidence of its existence prior to it being sold to someone else?

Perusing www.truckpaper.com (http://www.truckpaper.com) found the following listings for Thermo King trucks. A brand new 2006 22 ft model cost $84K, a 2002 used about $45.5K. Most of the refrigerated used trucks were in the $30 to $50K range.

INTERNATIONAL 4300 (http://www.truckpaper.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1014752&guid=7913BDD630FF496A80FBFAD06F9520EF)
Stk #2C064468
$83,950


OH




2006-New




Standard Cab, DT466 International 245 HP, Diesel, 6 Spd, 22' Van Body , Spring Suspension, 4.33 Ratio, 236" WB, 22.5 Tires, All Steel Wheels, Single Axle, Roll up Door, 744, New ready to go to ...
Midvale Truck Sales & Service, Inc. (http://javascript<b></b>:openWin('http://www.trksls.net'))



Photos (http://www.truckpaper.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1014752&guid=7913BDD630FF496A80FBFAD06F9520EF)



Send a Message (http://www.truckpaper.com/sendamessage/sendmessage.aspx?guid=7913BDD630FF496A80FBFAD06F95 20EF&dlr=&bcatid=27&PCID=2000659791&OHID=1014752)


Add To 'Trucks Of Interest' (http://www.truckpaper.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1014752&guid=7913BDD630FF496A80FBFAD06F9520EF&interest=add)




Updated: Aug 5 2006 10:50AM






2002 INTERNATIONAL 4300 (http://www.truckpaper.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1234097&guid=7913BDD630FF496A80FBFAD06F9520EF)
Stk #285179
$45,500


TX




2002-Used




Standard Cab, DT466E International 230 HP, Diesel, 6 SPD, 24' Van Body , Spring Suspension, 4.1 Ratio, 254" WB, 22.5 Tires, All Steel Wheels, Single Axle, 347,414 miles, THERMO KING, 24FT SAD ...
PENSKE TRUCK LEASING (http://javascript<b></b>:openWin('http://www.penskeusedtrucks.com'))
Phone:


Send a Message (http://www.truckpaper.com/sendamessage/sendmessage.aspx?guid=7913BDD630FF496A80FBFAD06F95 20EF&dlr=&bcatid=27&PCID=2000779602&OHID=1234097)



Add To 'Trucks Of Interest' (http://www.truckpaper.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1234097&guid=7913BDD630FF496A80FBFAD06F9520EF&interest=add)




Updated: Aug 21 2006 6:20AM

[Charlie Monoxide]

I heard of a similar situation that happened but involved less money. About $12,500. A former co-worker of mine is involved in buying/selling of expensive fountain pens. He related to me that after a show in Chicago, his friend was returning to California. His friend had made made a number of trades and sales. He was carrying $12,500 in cash from the transactions. At the airport he purchased a ticket and when he went to pay for the ticket, the clerk noticed he had this big wad of money. He was reported and subsequently detained. As indicated in the OP, the MONEY was arrested (ie "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" ). It took about 6 months but he eventually got his money back.

Charlie (another victim of the War On Drugs) Monoxide

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So, in effect, they are saying that U.S. currency is not legal tender if you are carrying large sums of it? That the act of possession of a large sum of cash is automatically evidence of drug activity?

It is if you include this part:

A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash.

[ponderingturtle]

I heard of a similar situation that happened but involved less money. About $12,500. A former co-worker of mine is involved in buying/selling of expensive fountain pens. He related to me that after a show in Chicago, his friend was returning to California. His friend had made made a number of trades and sales. He was carrying $12,500 in cash from the transactions. At the airport he purchased a ticket and when he went to pay for the ticket, the clerk noticed he had this big wad of money. He was reported and subsequently detained. As indicated in the OP, the MONEY was arrested (ie "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" ). It took about 6 months but he eventually got his money back.

Charlie (another victim of the War On Drugs) Monoxide

Don't you know, the government does not recognize that there are cash businesses other than drugs.

[hgc]

The drug war, like the inquisition of several hundred years ago, is largely but an elaborate asset siezure and account padding scheme for the benefit of corrupt authorities.

[JamesDillon]

Can you cite this regulation?

My understanding was that transactions had to be reported -- not merely carrying a large amount of cash.
I could be wrong; I have no great expertise in tax law. I thought you had to report simply carrying that much cash. You certainly have to declare it on Customs forms in the U.S. or Canada.

Wow, I guess I'll think twice about carrying 3 people's life savings around in a cooler, driving across country in a car rented under someone else's name, lying to police about possesion of the money, who the money came from, who rented the car, not providing a plausible explaination for what the money was being used for, lying about why I had rented a car, and rubbing the money in some drugs just to fool any drug sniffing drugs. What a wacky wacky country some of us live in. A guy can't even break a half a dozen laws without getting harrassed by the man

All of which is suspicious, but does not, I think, constitute a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., make it more likely than not based on the available evidence) that the money was involved in drug trafficking. Under the law, the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think the government's evidence comes close to meeting its burden of proof.

[Ladewig]

Wow, I guess I'll think twice about
(A) carrying 3 people's life savings around in a cooler,
(B) driving across country in a car rented under someone else's name,
(C) lying to police about possesion of the money,
(D) [lying to police about] who the money came from,
(E) [lying to police about] who rented the car,
(F) not providing a plausible explaination for what the money was being used for,
(G) lying about why I had rented a car, and
(H) rubbing the money in some drugs just to fool any drug sniffing drugs.

What a wacky wacky country some of us live in. A guy can't even break a half a dozen laws without getting harrassed by the man

Half a dozen laws? While B, C, D, E and G are against the law, I am very, very confident the punishment for lying to police during a traffic stop is not a $124,000 fine.

A and F are none of the police's business as far as I am concerned. As for H, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[BPSCG]

I'm confused.

Does this mean Gonzoloz committed a crime?
If so, why isn't he in jail?
If not, why doesn't he have his money?
Does the name of the case mean the money committed a crime?
Did the lawyer for the defense represent Gonzoloz or the money?I don't like the sound of this: "We don't have enough evidence to convict you, so you're free to go, but we're pretty sure you're a drug trafficker, so leave your money behind..."

My sense of it is that he was in fact on a drug run, simply because his story is so unverifiable, at least on the face of it. But it seems to me that if the police can't prove he committed a crime, they have no right to his money.

Question: The freezer truck had allegedly been sold by the time he got to Chicago. Anyone think to call the seller to confirm that claim?

[Thanz]

I could be wrong; I have no great expertise in tax law. I thought you had to report simply carrying that much cash. You certainly have to declare it on Customs forms in the U.S. or Canada.

Customs forms, yes. But that is just for carrying cash across the border - out of or into a country. Completely different than within the US.

[Cleon]

Half a dozen laws? While B, C, D, E and G are against the law, I am very, very confident the punishment for lying to police during a traffic stop is not a $124,000 fine.

A and F are none of the police's business as far as I am concerned. As for H, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Actually, I'm not sure B, C, D, E, and G are against the law.

I've driven cross-country in a car rented in someone else's name a number of times--granted, he or she was in the car at the time, but it's called a road trip. As long as you have valid insurance and the car isn't reported as stolen, as far as I know it could be rented in the name of Jesus H. Christ and the cops really can't do anything except look at you funny.

As far as lying to police goes, that's never been illegal. Granted, if you're trying to avoid being investigated, it's a bad idea, but it's not illegal in itself.

[hgc]

...
My sense of it is that he was in fact on a drug run, simply because his story is so unverifiable, at least on the face of it. But it seems to me that if the police can't prove he committed a crime, they have no right to his money.
...This is the key to drug war asset siezures: no conviction necessary. The seizing agency gets to keep the booty, and in some cases such as with car and boat siezure, individual officers get the prize (by means of rigged auctions and the like). It's modern-day land piracy sanctioned by drug hysteria.

[Major Billy]

the act of possession of a large sum of cash is automatically evidence of drug activity?It is if you include this part:A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash.Sadly, you should probably include this (http://www.libertarianworld.com/Property-Seizure-Rights.html):...the driver was black or Hispanic...

[HeavyAaron]

This is the key to drug war asset siezures: no conviction necessary. The seizing agency gets to keep the booty, and in some cases such as with car and boat siezure, individual officers get the prize (by means of rigged auctions and the like). It's modern-day land piracy sanctioned by drug hysteria.

I agree there's strong incentives for corruption. That's why I believe any assets aquired in this fashion go not to the government which is capturing them, but a completely different one. Like caputred vehicles in Maine belong to the government of Nevada. Navada's belong to Washington State, etc.

Likewise to prevent incentives to setup speed traps to fund one's city, or to shorten yellow lights to generate more revenue from red light cameras, all ticketing fines have to go to an entirely different jurisdiction in another state.

Aaron

ETA: From this it's not clear that I meant this is how I would like to change it to be. It obviously isn't the way it works right now. I meant this as a proposal to reduce corruption and perverse incentives that presently exist.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As far as lying to police goes, that's never been illegal. Granted, if you're trying to avoid being investigated, it's a bad idea, but it's not illegal in itself.

Huh??? There are laws against hindering an investigation.

[HarryKeogh]

As far as lying to police goes, that's never been illegal. Granted, if you're trying to avoid being investigated, it's a bad idea, but it's not illegal in itself.

Wasn't Boy George picking up garbage on the streets of NYC for that very reason (lying to police)?

[Cleon]

Huh??? There are laws against hindering an investigation.

That's all well and good, but there are stronger protections saying you have the right to not incriminate yourself--this includes lying to the police (IIRC).

Tell you what, find me someone convicted for lying to the police.

[HarryKeogh]

That's all well and good, but there are stronger protections saying you have the right to not incriminate yourself--this includes lying to the police (IIRC).

Tell you what, find me someone convicted for lying to the police.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_on_en_mu/boy_george_1 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_on_en_mu/boy_george_1)

The one-time Culture Club singer was ordered to spend five days working for the Department of Sanitation after pleading guilty in March to falsely reporting a burglary at his lower Manhattan apartment. The officers who responded found cocaine instead.

[Cleon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_on_en_mu/boy_george_1 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_on_en_mu/boy_george_1)


Fair enough, I should've been more explicit.

I don't mean filing a false report, or maliciously accusing someone of a crime they didn't commit. I mean, the cops asking you where you were Friday night, and you say "out with some friends" rather than "masturbating to a Victoria's Secret catalog." Or if they ask you who the car you're driving belongs to/was rented by, and you say your mother rather than your buddy down the street.

As far as I'm aware, that sort of lying is not illegal, whether you're actually guilty of anything or not.

[senorpogo]

I thought it said monkey.

[HarryKeogh]

I mean, the cops asking you where you were Friday night, and you say "out with some friends" rather than "masturbating to a Victoria's Secret catalog."

How did you know what I was doing Friday night? :(

[bob_kark]

I heard of a similar situation that happened but involved less money. About $12,500....

Charlie (another victim of the War On Drugs) Monoxide
This is what worries me about this ruling. It is no one's business how much cash you're carrying. In fact, for your own personal safety, it's better that no one know.

This case has a lot of circumstantial evidence, but nothing to prove that he was guilty of anything. In fact, you have a man with no criminal record. You have police dogs who detected drugs in a rental car. You have a guy worried about his money who didn't disclose that he had it. This guy's obviously not from the US. Its not too much of a stretch for him to believe that the police may steal his money. So really, we've got a guy, with a lot of money in a cooler in a rental car he couldn't have rented himself as he has no credit card.

Regardless of his guilt, charge him or give him his money back. That's how it works. We don't punish the people we're unable to find guilty.

[Beerina]

I'm confused.

Does this mean Gonzoloz committed a crime?
If so, why isn't he in jail?
If not, why doesn't he have his money?
Does the name of the case mean the money committed a crime?
Did the lawyer for the defense represent Gonzoloz or the money?I don't like the sound of this: "We don't have enough evidence to convict you, so you're free to go, but we're pretty sure you're a drug trafficker, so leave your money behind..."

Unfortunately, the government seizes property because they claim they detect a crime, therefore the stuff, being part of the crime, may be seized by the government. Nobody need be convicted, or even charged, or even arrested for this to occur.

About 15 years ago, when the show Cops first came on TV, I recall watching an episode where a trooper pulled over another Mexican guy, who had about $8000 inside a tire in his trunk. The trooper assumed it was drug money, and took it, then let the guy go his merry way.

A minor stink was made about this, with a few people in Congress calling for the officer to be arrested for theft.

Obviously not much was made about this, and we have slid further down the slippery slope since then.

[shemp]

I have decided to present here the dissenting opinion in this case. The full opinion can be found here. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/moneyseize.pdf)

LAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. Although the circumstantial evidence offered by the government provides some indication that the money seized in this case may be related to criminal activity, I cannot agree that the government has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, the requisite substantial connection between the currency and a controlled substance offense.

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. 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. 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. See United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060.00, 39 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[A] mere suspicion of illegal activity is not enough to establish . . . that the money was connected to drugs.”).

The law of our circuit makes clear that the possession of a large amount of cash provides strong evidence of a connection between the res and illegal drug activity. Yet this fact is not dispositive. A faithful reading of the cases cited by the majority from our court reveal that we have required some additional nexus between the property seized and drug activity to support forfeiture. In United States v. U.S. Currency, in the Amount of $150,660.00, 980 F.2d 1200 (8th Cir. 1992), we recognized such a nexus where the investigating officer immediately smelled marijuana upon inspecting the currency.(2) Id. at 1203, 1206. In United States v. $84,615 in U.S. Currency, 379 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2004), we concluded forfeiture was proper where the owner of the seized currency “undisputedly possessed illegal drugs at the time” the currency was discovered. Id. at 502. Most recently, in United States v. $117,920.00 in United States Currency, 413 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2005), we determined that forfeiture was warranted where materials known to be used to package and conceal drugs were recovered in close physical proximity to the seized currency, and where the investigating officer detected the smell of marijuana on some of these materials. Id. at 829.

Here, the only evidence linking the seized money to illegal drug activity is a canine sniff that alerted officers to the presence of narcotics on the currency itself and the exterior of the rear passenger side of the rental car where the currency was discovered. However, as Justice Souter recently recognized, a large percentage of currency presently in circulation contains trace amounts of narcotics. See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 410-12 (2005) (Souter, J. dissenting). As a result, this fact is virtually “meaningless and likely quite prejudicial.” United States v. Carr, 25 F.3d 1194, 1216 (3d Cir. 1994) (Becker, J., concurring). Our decision in $84,615 in U.S. Currency to afford this evidence only “slight” weight is thus well-founded, and this factor, taken in conjunction with the large amount of currency seized, does not favor forfeiture. 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. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

(2)Unlike our decision in U.S. Currency, in the Amount of $150,660.00, the odor of narcotics on the currency seized in this case was not apparent upon inspection, and thus there was no immediate relationship between drugs and the currency which would suggest the currency had recently been involved in a controlled substance offense.

Note that the men involved were NOT convicted of anything. Period. Yeah, I too suspect that they were, more likely than not, up to no good, but THAT DOESN'T PROVE THAT THEY WERE DRUG DEALERS.

I doubt the Supreme Court will hear this case. Why should any of them give a feck whether or not a bunch of Hispanics lose their life savings?

But the lesson I learned is this: Nothing you own is safe from theft by the government.

[Cleon]

How did you know what I was doing Friday night? :(

I'm psycho-er, ic. Psychic. Yeah, that's the ticket....

(note to self: trash the telescope.)

[hgc]

... This guy's obviously not from the US. Its not too much of a stretch for him to believe that the police may steal his money. ...Oh, the irony! Some guy from some other place where police corruption is likely rampant has generalized concerns that the police will steal his money, and then that's exactly what happens to him -- here in the USA. And a court at the penultimate level of appeal openly sanctions the theft.

[senorpogo]

Oh, the irony! Some guy from some other place where police corruption is likely rampant has generalized concerns that the police will steal his money, and then that's exactly what happens to him -- here in the USA. And a court at the penultimate level of appeal openly sanctions the theft.

An important lesson to remember before any American, myself included, pulls out any of that "home of the free" crap.

This is actually pretty depressing.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's all well and good, but there are stronger protections saying you have the right to not incriminate yourself--this includes lying to the police (IIRC).

Tell you what, find me someone convicted for lying to the police.

Boy George. And Martha Stewart, sort of.

[Bob Klase]

It is if you include this part:

A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash.

Then consider this too:

http://www.k9fleck.org/nlu09.htm

There is some indication that residue from narcotics contaminates as much as 96% of the currency currently in circulation.

[hgc]

Boy George. And Martha Stewart, sort of.Martha Stewart object lesson: you don't have to be under oath to get snagged for lying to investigators. If she had refused to sit down with investigators to clear up the alleged insider trading thing, she would never have been charged with any crime. DO NOT COOPERATE.

I don't know where the line gets drawn between lawful lying and obstruction of justice, but you best keep your mouth shut until you and your lawyer have talked it out very carefully. At least you still have that right, for the moment. of course you don't really, since keeping your mouth shut, your right under the 5th amendment, will cause the police and prosecutors to take extra measures against you. You get no sympathy, because most people don't understand that exercising the right to keep silent in no way implies guilt accoring to the law. (Exception for persons immunized against prosecution, but that's a whole 'nother matter.)

[Bob Klase]

Fair enough, I should've been more explicit.

I don't mean filing a false report, or maliciously accusing someone of a crime they didn't commit. I mean, the cops asking you where you were Friday night, and you say "out with some friends" rather than "masturbating to a Victoria's Secret catalog." Or if they ask you who the car you're driving belongs to/was rented by, and you say your mother rather than your buddy down the street.

As far as I'm aware, that sort of lying is not illegal, whether you're actually guilty of anything or not.

Lying is exactly what Martha Stewart was convicted of. She was found guilty on 4 charges:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/07/news/newsmakers/stewart_insider_trading/index.htm

Stewart was convicted on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making false statements

"Making false statements is 'lying'. That was a separate charge from the obstruction and conspiracy charges.

[BPSCG]

Scooter Libby. He's on his way, anyway.

[Bob Klase]

Scooter Libby. He's on his way, anyway.

Is he being charged with lying, or with perjury (lying under oath)?

[AmateurScientist]

But it seems to me that if the police can't prove he committed a crime, they have no right to his money.


One would think that. As bizarre and un-American as it sounds, this kind of thing has been going on for two decades now. Asset forfeiture at the local, state, and federal levels has been a reality ever since shortly after the War on Drugs under Reagan's vision began in earnest in the mid-80s. It has been a dark, Kafka-esque chapter in our history of civil rights.

It is true that the government need not prove that the owner of the money or other asset seized actually committed an offense in order for the asset to be forfeited. I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in mine it is virtually unheard of to win an asset forfeiture case if you are trying to prevent forfeiture (they are civil suits, of course).

I should say that this really isn't breaking news. It has been widely reported for years by print media and investigative television news magazines like 60 Minutes and 20/20.

Forfeiture laws are draconian and do not accomplish what they were intended to (cripple drug trafficking by depriving drug kingpins of their means to engage in trafficking). Instead, lower level drug dealers, drug users, persons innocent of drug offenses, and their friends, family members, and business partners get caught up in the web intended to capture major drug traffickers. They should be radically changed, or better yet, abolished altogether, but that won't happen. No one is going to stand up in Congress or a state legislature and propose or vote for a bill that looks like it's soft on drug dealing.

AS

[shemp]

In case anyone is wondering what incentive the government would have to seize assets from inncoent people, this is what The United States Marshals Service has to say: (http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/assets.html) (bolding mine)

The Marshals Service administers the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Program by managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited by federal law enforcement agencies and U.S. attorneys nationwide. The program has become a key part of the federal government's efforts to combat major criminal activities.

There are three goals of the Asset Forfeiture Program: enforcing the law; improving law enforcement cooperation; and enhancing law enforcement through revenue. Asset forfeiture is a law enforcement success story, and the Marshals Service plays a vital role.

In 1984, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which gave federal prosecutors new forfeiture provisions to combat crime. Also created by this legislation was the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF). The proceeds from the sale of forfeited assets such as real property, vehicles, businesses, financial instruments, vessels, aircraft and jewelry are deposited into the AFF and are subsequently used to further law enforcement initiatives.

Moreover, under the Equitable Sharing Program, the proceeds from sales are often shared with the state and local enforcement agencies that participated in the investigation which led to the seizure of the assets. This important program enhances law enforcement cooperation between state/local agencies and federal agencies.

The asset forfeiture community consists of: The Marshals Service; U.S. Attorney's Offices; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement Administration; Department of Homeland Security, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

It is important to note that the Marshals Service participates with the U.S. Attorneys Offices and the investigative agencies in pre-seizure planning — the first critical step to ensuring that sound, well-informed forfeiture decisions are made.

The role of the Marshals Service is to not only serve as custodian of seized and forfeited property but also to provide information and assist prosecutors in making informed decisions about property that is targeted for forfeiture. The Marshals Service manages and disposes of all assets seized for forfeiture by utilizing successful procedures employed by the private sector. The Marshals Service contracts with qualified vendors who minimize the amount of time an asset remains in inventory and maximize the net return to the government.

Hmmm, I was under the misconception that the purpose of asset forfeiture was to enforce the law and deter crime, not to generate revenue. But I guess we can trust them not to seize assets in order to make the books look good and fill their pockets, can't we?

[hgc]

...No one is going to stand up in Congress or a state legislature and propose or vote for a bill that looks like it's soft on drug dealing.It's times like this that make me sad that the Libertarian Party is the provence of kooks and cranks. I think there really is a place in our political discourse for organized libertarianism, even if I don't agree with all the goals.

[shemp]

And if anyone is interested in hearing from some of the victims of asset forfeiture, or advocates of reform, there's http://www.fear.org/

[shemp]

It's times like this that make me sad that the Libertarian Party is the provence of kooks and cranks. I think there really is a place in our political discourse for organized libertarianism, even if I don't agree with all the goals.

What we really need is a moderate third party made up of people who are less interested in political ideology than they are in what's best for their country; and who believe that it is better to sit down and discuss issues rationally and objectively, rather than screaming invective. This will never happen.

[pgwenthold]

Am I the only one who is deeply disturbed by the fact that these cases are referred to as "The US vs money in US currency"?

Why is the $$$ made the defendent? These are people who claim to have money taken from them. They are the ones allegedly harmed, and the ones who bring the case.

[hgc]

In case anyone is wondering what incentive the government would have to seize assets from inncoent people, this is what The United States Marshals Service has to say: (http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/assets.html) (bolding mine)



Hmmm, I was under the misconception that the purpose of asset forfeiture was to enforce the law and deter crime, not to generate revenue. But I guess we can trust them not to seize assets in order to make the books look good and fill their pockets, can't we?This is only the tip if the drug war economic ice-berg. Law enforcement, prosecution, the defense bar, prison-related industries, and so on. They're all enhanced tremendously by the misery of prosecuting and jailing drug offenders. You've all seen the disturbing statistics of the percentage of black men in the U.S. somehow involved with criminal justice -- as convicts, awaiting trial, on parole or probation, etc. A huge percent of that number are people convicted of crimes that keep all the aforementioned in business. The success of this enterprise only emboldened them to branch out into asset theft ... er ... siezure.

[AmateurScientist]

What we really need is a moderate third party made up of people who are less interested in political ideology than they are in what's best for their country; and who believe that it is better to sit down and discuss issues rationally and objectively, rather than screaming invective. This will never happen.

I don't think there is such a thing as a moderate third party made up of people who are not interested in ideology. Third parties in the US tend to be single issue parties, or those founded on ideology. The party loyalists and activists tend to be extremely wedded to their ideology, not moderate.

I suppose you're right. It will (likely) never happen.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Am I the only one who is deeply disturbed by the fact that these cases are referred to as "The US vs money in US currency"?

Why is the $$$ made the defendent? These are people who claim to have money taken from them. They are the ones allegedly harmed, and the ones who bring the case.

It's an old legal concept called an action in rem, meaning against the thing itself. It's a legal fiction, but one widely recognized. The fiction part is the one that contends that the thing is due to be forfeited because it has been involved in criminal activity. Obviously, things don't commit crimes, but people do. There's nothing disturbing about it. It's just a little weird if you've never wrestled with the concept on a practical level before.

When the government wins, it's not a judgment against the person. It's a judgment declaring and ordering that the seized asset is forfeited to the government. Thus, the owner need not declare bankruptcy or seek protection of his or her other assets to prevent execution of the judgment against them. The judgment is only against the seized asset.

AS

[bob_kark]

I suppose you're right. It will (likely) never happen.

AS
It certainly should though. There's plenty of room for a moderate third party. I think they could do quite well if they were quack free. I think people are ready for a change.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What we really need is a moderate third party made up of people who are less interested in political ideology than they are in what's best for their country; and who believe that it is better to sit down and discuss issues rationally and objectively, rather than screaming invective. This will never happen.

And they would never be elected.

[Tony]

How did you know what I was doing Friday night? :(

The news of your Friday night tomfoolery was all over MySpace on Saturday morning.

[Tony]

Wow, I guess I'll think twice about carrying 3 people's life savings around in a cooler, driving across country in a car rented under someone else's name, lying to police about possesion of the money, who the money came from, who rented the car, not providing a plausible explaination for what the money was being used for, lying about why I had rented a car, and rubbing the money in some drugs just to fool any drug sniffing drugs. What a wacky wacky country some of us live in. A guy can't even break a half a dozen laws without getting harrassed by the man


How dare he thinks he is innocent until proven guilty.

[TragicMonkey]

I read somewhere that all US currency has so much cocaine residue on it, that drug dogs will bark at any bill. Is that true?

[BPSCG]

I read somewhere that all US currency has so much cocaine residue on it, that drug dogs will bark at any bill. Is that true?Sounded like an urban legend to me. Turns out not all of it, but a lot. (http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp)

[Ladewig]

Sounded like an urban legend to me. Turns out not all of it, but a lot. (http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp)

From the link provided: "In one 1985 study done by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration on the money machines in a U.S. Federal Reserve district bank, random samples of $50 and $100 bills revealed that a third to a half of all the currency tested bore traces of cocaine."

Clearly, the Federal Reserve Bank is using its large numbers of unmarked bills to buy illegal drugs. The U.S. Marshall Service should confiscate the bills passing through the Fed.

--------------------

After reading the thread, I do wish someone would go plant pot on the property of some federal judges and U.S. congressfolk. I'd love to see their faces as their houses were confiscated.

[TragicMonkey]

Clearly, the Federal Reserve Bank is using its large numbers of unmarked bills to buy illegal drugs. The U.S. Marshall Service should confiscate the bills passing through the Fed.

The sensible thing to do would be to save time and simply make cocaine legal tender, bypassing the middleman of the US Mint.

[President Bush]

I rarely go anywhere on a long trip with less than $3000. in cash.
Wealth is disease. I am the cure.

[TragicMonkey]

Wealth is disease. I am the cure.

Sigh. I appear to have a natural immunity.

[ponderingturtle]

How dare he thinks he is innocent until proven guilty.

Well he is, but his money is guilty until proven innocent.

[webfusion]

I read somewhere that all US currency has so much cocaine residue on it, that drug dogs will bark at any bill. Is that true?

Did you read it in my Post #4 of this thread? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1862137&postcount=4)

[TragicMonkey]

Did you read it in my Post #4 of this thread? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1862137&postcount=4)

No, I read it in Hippopotamus Latex Fetish Monthly magazine.

[BobK]

Hey Shemp,
Here's one from your neck of the woods.
Union Leader (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Police+property%3a+It%e2%80% 99s+finders+keepers+in+NH&articleId=c2807a58-75ed-4972-8ab9-caec6bbbb979)
The state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the government can keep and destroy more than 500 CDs taken from Michael Cohen, owner of Pitchfork Records in Concord, in 2003 even though the state failed to prove that a single disk was illegal.

Cohen was arrested for attempting to sell bootleg recordings. But the police case collapsed when it turned out that most of the recordings were made legally. Police dropped six of the seven charges, and Cohen went to trial on one charge. He beat it after the judge concluded that the recording was legal.

However, the police refused to return Cohen’s CDs. In the state Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling, Chief Justice John Broderick, writing for the majority, reasoned so poorly that it appeared as if he’d made up his mind ahead of time.

Dissenting, Justice Linda Dalianis wrote, perceptively, that “the majority does not explain how statutes prohibiting the production, publication, or sale of certain works render possession of such works unlawful.”

Further, Dalianis concluded that “the state’s failure to establish in any way that the seized property constitutes contraband” made it impossible to justify keeping Cohen’s property.

[Beerina]

In case anyone is wondering what incentive the government would have to seize assets from inncoent people, this is what The United States Marshals Service has to say: (http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/assets.html) (bolding mine)



Hmmm, I was under the misconception that the purpose of asset forfeiture was to enforce the law and deter crime, not to generate revenue. But I guess we can trust them not to seize assets in order to make the books look good and fill their pockets, can't we?

I fought a ticket in court -- they were happy to take my money and not give me a ticket on my record as long as I didn't get another ticket for 6 months. The $70 I paid, my lawyer explained, was divided into 3 -- 1/3 for the city police, 1/3 for the state, and 1/3 for the statewide judges' retirement fund.

In any other situation, Congress would be outraged, blathering about "conflict of interest". But not when you're lining your own pocket.

Lording over the people is an important function for the government because it gives the little thugs a way to boost their own revenue, which in turn helps them support the higher ups.