There have been cases of law enforcement officers seizing cash from travelers for years. They have been seizing cash based on the mere cynical suspicion that any large sums of cash are most likely involved in drug trafficing. They have been doing this with little or no evidence, often citing no more than a drug dog "barking at the cash" as evidence. This type of seizure has been perpetrated against people who have no criminal background and no physical evidence is presented against them.
In most of these cases the suspected criminal is never even arrested, just detained, searched, and released and then told that they will not be aloud to keep their money and if they want it back then they must sue the law enforcement agency for it's return! That's right, to get the money back a lawsuit must be brought against the eforcement agency that seized the cash.
Just recently the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that found "no evidence of drug activity" in a case where a man's cash was seized on the suspicion that it was "drug money".
The news story is here.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
"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," Judge Lay wrote. "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."
drug use or distribution."
There have been other cases very similar to this one and often time the size of the cash amount is much smaller often not more than $5000. I may cite some specific examples and sources later if it may please the readers and participants of this thread.
This, to me, is another clear example of how the "War on Drugs" is used to interfere in the lives of American citizens. I, for one, do not wish to live in the sort or authoritarian society in which it is a crime to travel with "too much cash" and the punishment for this crime is the automatic forfeiture of said cash to whatever law enforcement agency may happen to find out you have it.
This shall be moved to IDT later.
