Rental car + cash = no cash for you

[willis]

Originally Posted by donkey approved article

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."

AP Wire | 08/18/2006 | Court rules 2003 money seizure correct despite no drugs found

so wait. If the govt finds you with large sums of money, claims drugs, and gets a drug dog to alert to your rental car / money (because really, how many people besides you have driven that rental car, and money.. money is always handled by only one person ever.. any drug residues must be yours)..

they get to keep the money without ever having to go thru all the hassle of actually charging you with anything and GOD FORBID they have to actually convict you to keep that ish..

what a spectacular system we are living in..



Anyone care to explain how a person can be punished without ever having to be even charged with a crime??

because really, that doesn't seem to jibe with the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' theory that runs thru our system..

[kinggovernor]

he didn't think DUI was a crime x11ty billion

[Kytro]

Seisure laws as so over the top, unfair and unreasonable.

The things that have been done with these laws are completely without justice.

[thomez]

probably 90% of dollar bills have both coke and pussy residue

[Stylerod]

How many lies could he tell?

[motivez]

I remember reading that most American bills actually DO have traces of cocaine and other drugs on them..

[thomez]

Originally Posted by motivez

I remember reading that most American bills actually DO have traces of cocaine and other drugs on them..

see post 4

[Donkey®]

If it were a trunk load of DVD players instead of cash would this be looked at any differently? The guy was pulled over for speeding. Lied to the officer about his prior offenses and about the cash in the cooler and his cash was seized until he could prove the money was actually his. He had his day in court to try and prove that...FAILED MISERABLY. In the ruling from the 8th circuit...this guy couldn't even remember the name of the person who set up the truck sale nor had he ever met the guy who was selling the truck. He got caught lying his ass off and got Mr. Escobar's money taken. He'll be dead in a week.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If it were a trunk load of DVD players instead of cash would this be looked at any differently? The guy was pulled over for speeding. Lied to the officer about his prior offenses and about the cash in the cooler and his cash was seized until he could prove the money was actually his. He had his day in court to try and prove that...FAILED MISERABLY. In the ruling from the 8th circuit...this guy couldn't even remember the name of the person who set up the truck sale nor had he ever met the guy who was selling the truck. He got caught lying his ass off and got Mr. Escobar's money taken. He'll be dead in a week.

so he has to prove his innocence?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by thomez

so he has to prove his innocence?

He wasn't charged with anything?? If he was just a mule, the money isn't even his in the first place. All he was asked to do was prove the money was his...he couldn't. If he was able to prove it, it is entirely possible he could have been charged with a drug offense down the road after investigations concluded.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

..Lied to the officer about his prior offenses and about the cash in the cooler and his cash was seized until he could prove the money was actually his. He had his day in court to try and prove that...FAILED MISERABLY.

The government shouldn't be able to take something without proof. You shouldn't have to prove money is yours, the government should have to prove it isn't.

These laws have abused no end, and are extremely unfair (assumption of guilt)

Example:

The Palm Beach Post (Florida) ran a front page story on Sunday, November 13, 1994 entitled "Family still fights for good name after feds seized ranch 6 years ago."

The story, written by Susannah A. Nesmith, features Donald Jones, 36, his sister Toni Wiersma, 40, and their 75-year-old mother Mildred Jones whose 4,000 acre family ranch was seized by then- acting U.S. Attorney Dexter Lehtinen in September 1988. The working ranch, valued at $6 million, is located on Brighton Seminole Indian Reservation in Glades County, near Lake Okeechobee.

The seizure--touted by Lehtinen as being the "largest federal property seizure in U.S. history"--was precipitated by the crash of a twin-engine Piper Navajo in February 1986. The badly-burned crash victims were never positively identified and no drugs were found in the wreckage. Still, law enforcement authorities concluded that the plane was carrying drugs because metal grommets were found in the plane's remains. According to court documents, the grommets were similar to those used in the duffel bags drug dealer typically pack their drugs in. The grommets were later lost by the Glades County Sheriff's Office. Nobody in the Jones family was charged with drug dealing, nor were any of the employees on the ranch.

The plane did not crash on the Jones ranch. It crashed about a mile from the ranch's western border. The ranch was seized because of the government's claim that the alleged drug plane was headed to the ranch before it crashed.

The government made the seizure after snitch Lazaro Fernandez, who was caught unloading drugs off a different plane, made a deal with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to stay out of jail. Fernandez fingered 10 other men and gave the government the "probable cause" it needed to seize the family ranch.

Fernandez's story changed repeatedly from 1988 to 1993. At first he said that he had never been to the Jones ranch. Later, he said that he did go to the ranch and saw a man named Richard I. Platt in a pickup truck near the alleged airstrip. By 1993, Fernandez

stated that the man in the truck was not Platt, but Bill Wiersma, Toni Wiersma's husband. Fernandez also was caught lying under oath in a related criminal case in 1987.

In May 1994, U.S. District Judge William Hoeveler returned the ranch to the Jones family. Hoeveler wrote "It is of interest to note that, unlike the majority of the populace, Mr. Fernandez's memory seemed to improve rather than fade away with the passage of time, so that, remarkably, in 1993, he did what he couldn't do in 1988 or earlier: He identified Bill Wiersma."

Despite the return of their ranch, family members still don't think they received justice. Besides the $700,000 in legal fees they've expended, the family members say that the drug allegations have hurt the family's reputation. "I didn't step foot out of the house for three weeks," Mildred Jones said. "It was so embarrassing. I had never been in such a predicament."

From Fear.org

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He wasn't charged with anything?? If he was just a mule, the money isn't even his in the first place. All he was asked to do was prove the money was his...he couldn't. If he was able to prove it, it is entirely possible he could have been charged with a drug offense down the road after investigations concluded.

the burden of proof is not on him

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by thomez

the burden of proof is not on him

We're not talking about proof of guilt or innocence. We're talking about proof of ownership.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thomez

the burden of proof is not on him

it was in the court of appeals

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

We're not talking about proof of guilt or innocence. We're talking about proof of ownership.

can you prove that you own.. your watch? if pulled over, will you have to surrender it until you can provide a reciept?

the state has the obligation to prove wrongdoing, not you your innnocence

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

it was in the court of appeals

After the government assumed the money was drug money. They should have to go to court to prove their case before confiscating assets

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

After the government assumed the money was drug money. They should have to go to court to prove their case before confiscating assets

a friend of mine had his car taken as evidence, but he was charged with a crime and can get it back after he goes to court

I understand taking evidence, but only if charged with a crime, and it is returnable providing you are found innocent.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by thomez

can you prove that you own.. your watch? if pulled over, will you have to surrender it until you can provide a reciept?

the state has the obligation to prove wrongdoing, not you your innnocence

My watch? How does this have any relation to the circumstances of the case? He was stopped for speeding. Lied to the cop. Consented to a search. Lied some more. Was arrested. Everything that was with him was brought to the station. There was a drug dog detecting drugs on the money and car seat/cooler the money was in. He had no legal right to be driving the car in the first place. Wasn't the renter. Wasn't on the "approved driver" list. The money at that point was deemed to be connected to a "conspiracy" at the time. He had his day in court to come in and PROVE the money actually belonged to him. He could not do that. The government can't PROVE whose money it is therefore they can't charge anyone with anything.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

My watch? How does this have any relation to the circumstances of the case? He was stopped for speeding. Lied to the cop. Consented to a search. Lied some more. Was arrested. Everything that was with him was brought to the station. There was a drug dog detecting drugs on the money and car seat/cooler the money was in. He had no legal right to be driving the car in the first place. Wasn't the renter. Wasn't on the "approved driver" list. The money at that point was deemed to be connected to a "conspiracy" at the time. He had his day in court to come in and PROVE the money actually belonged to him. He could not do that.

was it proven NOT to be his? because he has no burden of proof to live up to

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by thomez

was it proven NOT to be his? because he has no burden of proof to live up to

The guy can't even prove himself that the money is his...how is the government supposed to prove it is his or anyone elses?