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?

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 01:19:47 PM EST
    what's the legal definition of "large sum of cash
    Any amount worth stealing...err seizing.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 01:28:26 PM EST
    Punchy
    Talk about a bonanza. Talk about rife for abuse. How am I supossed to legally transport cash I win in Vegas OUT of Vegas?
    The Cops still have to prove by a pronderance of the evidence that the money was linked to drug traficking. If you won that much money in Vegas there'd be a paper trail. The casino would have a record of cashing you out, there would be security tapes, you probably would have recieved some comps, you might have reported some of the winnings to the IRS at the window, ect. If you actually won the money at a casino it would be pretty difficult for the cops to prove their burden if you presented any evidence at all. Never mind that you can always wire the money. If you just won $100k it's worth the extra $20 to get it into your bank account safely.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 02:03:50 PM EST
    punchy writes:
    Talk about a bonanza. Talk about rife for abuse. How am I supossed to legally transport cash I win in Vegas OUT of Vegas?
    Somehow I don't think you have to worry. ;-) 1. Buy yourself a cashier check. 2. Open a bank account and wire transfer it back. 3. Open a bank account and then write checks on it when you desire. 4. Buy yourself a USPS money order. are four options. BTW - Remembering I am a poker player... the max you can carry on board an aircraft is $5000 in cash. So the bank accounts in cities you play in is the best option.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    Driving with monkeys is inherently dangerous.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    Where else would someone with the name of Gonzolez get that kind of money /sarcasm

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 04:30:08 PM EST
    huesofblue, I wasn't commenting on your comment, I just thought a bit of sanity should be applied to the JustUs system. And since the PDs involved get a cut, and don't have to prove it in court, unless you have more $$ to spend on (un)civil litigation, you get screwed. Kinda like the supremes saying 'we can take your land and give it to a large corporation if we think we can make more money from it than we can make from you'

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 04:34:26 PM EST
    The Cops still have to prove by a pronderance of the evidence that the money was linked to drug traficking.
    No they don't. They just have to take it, then it is up to you to prove they shouldn't have.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 05:05:42 PM EST
    And since the PDs involved get a cut, and don't have to prove it in court, unless you have more $$ to spend on (un)civil litigation, you get screwed.
    I think you're right. Since the government isn't actually accusing you of a crime, there's no right to counsel. But if the government took all your money, how do you fight it? It's pretty twisted.
    No they don't. They just have to take it, then it is up to you to prove they shouldn't have.
    Yes and no. The cops have are legally obligated to give seized property back after a certain period of time. That is, unless the government goes through this civil forfeiture procedure to obtain legal title to the seized property. But in order for that to happen, the burden of proof is on the government - they have to prove the link by the preponderance of the evidence. The reason I think you're right is that unless you can put on some meaningful evidence that that the property wasn't obtained with drug proceeds, the government is going to win.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 07:06:48 PM EST
    Exactly who would travel with $124,700 cash rather than a cashier's check, traveler's check, etc. in a car rented on someone else's name to buy a truck from someone he had never seen before? The commentators should perhaps read the entire opinion.
    I read the entire opinion. It's certainly not normal behavior. Who has $125,000 in cash but not a credit card or a bank account? Who buys a $125,000 truck with a suitcase full of cash? The guy's story doesn't add up. If you were savy enough to save up $50,000 in cash, wouldn't you also be savy enough to draw up a contract or two before your friend used that money to buy a truck in his own name? The problem is that the government's story doesn't add up to drug trafficking either. Maybe this guy didn't give the name of his friend in Chicago because the friend is an illegal alien? Or maybe the "refrigerated truck" was really supposed to be a truck full of stolen stereos? Or maybe the truck itself was stolen? Or maybe he brought all that cash intending to buy a shippment of drugs that got seized along the way? Or maybe he's in the business of illegally smuggling people into the country? Or maybe he's telling the truth? No one knows! The statute only deals with the proceeeds of drug crimes. In my mind that government's evidence just doesn't establish a substantial link between the money and drugs.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#24)
    by BigTex on Mon Aug 21, 2006 at 07:53:31 PM EST
    Roger - did it go to the appellate level? If so, can you toss the cite this way? Sounds like a fascinating case. Louisiana has a similar problem. THe state troopers there love to wait between the Texas state line and the 1st casino. They will pull people over on a pretext so they can search and find the gambling money, then use the old drug charge. What's worse, when the practice gained national exposure, the LA AG issued an order fo the praactice to stop, and several South Park You Will Respect My Author - I - TY type of local law enforcement agencies told the AG where to stick it, presumably because of the added income it gave to their local coffers. This problem won't go away until the arresting bodies are no longer allowed to keep any of the money seized. While I'm hesitant to say give it to the federal governmnet, at least putting it in the general treasury would take away the incentive to claim it's drug profits when a case can't be made. Oscar - mens rea means the mental componet to a crime. Actus reas is the physical component. Some crimes do not need a mens rea, hince the question of when will someone aruge that a mens rea is necessary for drug crimes, since we all regularally violate the drug laws by carrying cash that has detectable abounts of coke on it.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 06:37:46 AM EST
    If the government wants to pretend an asset is a person then you should be allowed to mount a defense using the same tactic. For example, how can an '82 Camaro get a fair trial when it is denied access to the courtroom? The court should be required to modify it's facilities in such a way as to accomodate the Camaro's disability. Also, the vehicle does not speak English and so it should be provided with a competent interpreter.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 06:53:37 AM EST
    As hard as it is for some to fathom...some Americans don't use banks. Fewer and fewer every day...but we are still out there.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 07:01:58 AM EST
    Remember when the Warren Court ruled that you couldn't stop a car just because the driver had long hair and drove a wild-looking van? Ah, the days when we were really free. (sigh)

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 09:37:22 AM EST
    JimakaPPJ: Remembering I am a poker player... the max you can carry on board an aircraft is $5000 in cash. I, too, am a poker player, and I have never heard of this restriction (and if it is true, I've violated it unwittingly many times). Can you provide a cite?

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 10:02:54 AM EST
    I heard the 5k limit is a rumor...in truth there is no limit, but you will be detained and questioned and asked to account for the source of the money if your holding any amount the authorities deem suspicous. FWIW.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 10:20:39 AM EST
    I heard the 5k limit is a rumor...
    Isn't that one of the questions that customs asks when you enter the country? That might be where the rumor comes from.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 10:32:20 AM EST
    There is no regulation of how much cash one can take on an airplane. I have never even seen anyone, even arab or latino people, being asked how much money they have on them. Let's move to logic. Possessing legal tender is legal. In our capitalistic society, possessing more legal tender is better than possessing less legal tender. Only in our "legal" system is there an assumption that possessing legal tender means that the legal item itself the fruit of illegal activity. This is what the forfeiture laws have wrought. Although the Govt is supposed to prove in a civil proceeding that the seized cash is related to drug activity, oftentimes those cases get settled by letting the govt keep some of the money. Why? Because it's a civl case and there's no right to a speedy trial. Plus there's no right to an attorney. You have to pay your own attorney and if the govt is holding your money, how are you going to pay a good attorney? Civil cases may drag out for years, all the while the govt is earning interest on your money. And, if you win, all you get is your money back, no interest, no attorney fees. It's easier to settle, no matter what the facts are.

    Re: Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    Man, this whole system of seizing property suspected of being "drug related" is just twisted. It's guaranteed to produce even more police misconduct.

    Appeals Court: Driving With Money is Evidence of a Crime | 32 comments (32 topical)