Pubdate: Wed, 13 Sep 2006
Source: Burlington Times-News (NC)
Copyright: 2006 The Times-News Publishing Company
Contact: http://www.thetimesnews.com/letter_to_editor/splash.php
Website: http://www.thetimesnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1822
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/racial.htm (Racial Issues)

TAKING PROPERTY ON SUSPICION ALONE IS BAD PRECEDENT

Don't get caught with too much cash" might be the warning that comes  
from a recent circuit court of appeals case.

In essence, the 8th Circuit (in the Midwest) ruled last month that  
anyone driving with large quantities of cash must be assumed to be  
guilty of something, and that the government can take that cash from  
its owner.

No evidence of wrongdoing need be found for the police to take the  
money and run. And you thought the weird rulings only came out of  
California. In 2003, Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez was pulled over by a  
state trooper in his rental car for speeding along a Nebraska  
interstate highway.

The driver handed the trooper a Nevada license, and the cars rental  
contract.

However, a different mans name was on the contract.

After Gonzolez told the officer that he had never been arrested, the  
officer checked with his dispatcher and found that Gonzolez had  
indeed been arrested for a DUI earlier that same year. Those  
suspicions led to a search of the car, which led to the discovery of  
$124,700 in cash in a cooler.

Later, as the court explained, a drug-sniffing dog named Rico got a  
scent of drugs on some of the cash and in the rental car, but no  
drugs, drug residue or drug paraphernalia were found. The government  
claimed that "the dogs alert, along with the large amount of cash  
that was seized, the circumstances of Gonzolezs travel, and Gonzolezs  
initial false denials that he was carrying cash or that he had a  
criminal history, showed that the currency was substantially  
connected to a drug transaction," according to the court analysis.

Friends and relatives of Gonzolez testified that they had given him  
money from their savings so that he could buy a refrigerated truck  
for their produce business, and Gonzolez said he didnt mention the  
cash to officers because he was "scared" and he said he had no arrest  
record because he didnt think a DUI was considered a crime. A  
district court ruled in Gonzolezs favor, stating that his explanation  
was plausible and that the government did not provide any proof that  
he was involved in the drug trade.

That seems obvious to us. Just because someone is involved in  
suspicious activity doesnt mean he has done anything wrong.

In this country, the government is supposed to have proof before  
denying a person his liberty or his property.

The government could not prosecute Gonzolez on drug charges, given  
the lack of evidence, yet it claimed authority to keep his money,  
anyway. The 8th Circuit has now reversed the district court.

It argued that "possession of a large sum of cash is strong evidence  
of a connection to drug activity." The court called it a common-sense  
view that concealing large amounts of money is more likely to be the  
result of drug activity than of Gonzolezs stated reason of hiding  
money from would-be thieves.

The court found a number of Gonzolezs traveling arrangements to be  
suspicious. And that was enough for the court.

But this is absurd.

We thought that in this country the government needed evidence, not  
just suspicions. Where is the proof that a crime was commited? This  
is one of the more foolish, unjust decisions weve seen in a while.

Lets hope the case goes on to the Supreme Court.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl