home

Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence of a Crime

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 10:59:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that driving with cash is evidence of drug activity and may be seized. The money had been seized during an Indiana traffic stop.

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.

The trial court had ruled for Gonzales. The 8th Circuit reversed:

"We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."

At least there was a dissent. You can read the opinion here (pdf). [hat tip Patriot Daily.]

< Court Dismisses Most Serious Count Against Jose Padilla | Old Secrets Made New >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence of a Crime | 32 comments (32 topical)
    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    Sounds like my government....a license to steal is what they've awarded themselves.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    At least Dick Turpin wore a mask when he went on the rob. Talk about one for the "Cor Blimey" file, this surely takes pride and place at the top of list. "They hate us for our freedom" oh yeah, I bet the're green with envy. Is there any recourse, or is that it? And as to fido sniffing out the money, if the bills were anything like the ones over here, it aint surprising. Nine out of ten banknotes...

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#3)
    by BigTex on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 11:35:39 AM EST
    I wonder how long it will be before some ingenious defense council in a drug trial tries to make the argument that there must be a mens rea componet to a drug crime. If the case is one involving less than a gram, then the cash we carry makes us all guilty of technically violating drug laws. The argument will probablly fail, but would make for an interesting appeal.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#4)
    by oldtree on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    don corleone had it wrong. the courts would be happy to accept drug money from him. they were in his pockets throughout the country, but he didn't realize how hungry they were. so there will never be a war on drugs by law enforcement. that would affect the profits from the incoming 50 billion each year. there will also never be a cessation of the war on drugs. that would affect the profits from the incoming 50 billion each year.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    Is there any recourse, or is that it?
    My understanding of it Oscar is the man can take whatever you own on suspicion alone. After you're acquited, you have to sue to get your possesions/cash back...and that takes years and years. Freedom my arse. The America I believe allows anybody to carry as much cash as they wish...or as much reefer as they want for that matter. Needless to say, the America I believe in does not exist except in my mind.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 11:43:43 AM EST
    I guess if a cop wants to meet his drug bust quota he just has to wait for the next armored car to roll by. Would cab or bus drivers now be suspect? What about Mr Softee or good humor truck drivers. This could get interesting.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 11:47:29 AM EST
    I wonder how long it will be before some ingenious defense council in a drug trial tries to make the argument that there must be a mens rea componet to a drug crime.
    Perhaps I'm a tad slow but I truly have no understanding your meaning, would you care to enlighten.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 11:55:18 AM EST
    Kdog. Can't argue with you, but I had a similar experience with the Irish customs, and for a far lesser ammount. £2K was enough for them to literally take my car to pieces, didn't find anything though, pooch must have had a cold.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 12:08:38 PM EST
    Canadian government once impounded my car because I had an apple - I kid you not. 1981 while travelling from Los Angeles to Vancouver I had an apple in a cooler. I forgot to take it out since there was a quarantine at the time regarding the medfly. So they impounded my car for 24 hours while they searched it for more contraband. Here's the best part of the story. I had also forgotten to remove a small stash of pot from the stereo where I hid it behind an 8 track player (shows how long ago this was). Canadians never found that - but the apple was gone. I got the car back, but I should have been jailed for listening to Supertramp on an 8 track player.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#10)
    by roger on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    Tex, We had that case in Fla., and it won. The legislature overuled it.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 12:24:14 PM EST
    That's a really bad decision. Basically, the decisions comes down to: a large sum of money + hidden in a car + lying about it + a sniff test by a dog = a substantial connection between the money and drug trafficking. I just don't think that's a preponderance of the evidence, especially when the trial judge would have evaluated the credibility of the witnesses in making its determination. The circumstances are very suspicious, but this strikes me as a case where the trial judge is much better situated to weigh the evidence.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 12:57:16 PM EST
    The circumstances are very suspicious
    no drugs, no crime, period!

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    no drugs, no crime, period!
    I guess I'm looking at this inside the the context of the law the opinion discusses. That law allows the government to keep seized property if it can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was a substantial connection between the property and a drug trafficking offense. The weird thing is that it doesn't require any conviction of a drug trafficking offense. So a person can be aquitted of (or never even be charged with) a crime and the governent can still seize the property by proving a much lesser burden. I was arguing that they haven't proved that lesser burden here as a matter of law. I think you're arguing that the burden should be higher to begin with. I'm inclined to agree with you, I was just looking at a narrower issue.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#14)
    by Punchy on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 01:18:03 PM EST
    Cops just outside of Las Vegas just threw a huge party after hearing about this. Talk about a bonanza. Talk about rife for abuse. How am I supossed to legally transport cash I win in Vegas OUT of Vegas? TL--what's the legal definition of "large sum of cash"? $100? $1000?

    %%norm_fon