NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp

The Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruled that cops have a right to confiscate "large sums of money" because and I quote " Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity'."

The kicker here is that they don't have to convict or even ACUSE you of any crime, nor do they need any evidence aside from the fact that you have a lot of money on you.

How's that for a cival rights violation?

That'll get struck down really quickly. The ACLU won't waste a minute with this one.

Rich people are not going to like this.

Sucks to live in the Eighth Circuit (wherever that is...)

Topic has been done before.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497208

*happy dance* I have no money for them to take! *hangs head*

Funny you don't mention that the cash, was in bricks wrapped up in aluminum foil, sealed in plastic bags, and hidden in a cooler...

the driver, According to his story, flew to town to buy a truck from someone he didn't know, then found that the truck was sold, so instead of buying a ticket back, had another friend (who's name didn't match the rental agreement) rent the truck for him on his drive back. and You also didn't mention that the amount he was carrying was in excess of a Hundred thousand in currency. why didn't he get a cashier's check? or money order?

also, you didn't mention that he lied to the officer when he was asked if he was arrested before, or if he was transporting Large Amounts of Cash.

and you failed to hint that the K9 unit detected Drug residue on the cash he was carrying and not on other currency that was placed beside the confiscated cash.

So no, his rights were not trampled, he didn't take care of his rights.

Hmmm....I shoulda read the article...well, what a moron.

Topic has been done before.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=497208

Hadn't seen it, but a lot of threads are apearing and disapearing lately. I actualy wondered why this hadn't come up on here.

<edit: No wonder I didn't find it, the thread title held no clue that it was about this case.>

Funny you don't mention that the cash, was in bricks wrapped up in aluminum foil, sealed in plastic bags, and hidden in a cooler...

the driver, According to his story, flew to town to buy a truck from someone he didn't know, then found that the truck was sold, so instead of buying a ticket back, had another friend (who's name didn't match the rental agreement) rent the truck for him on his drive back. and You also didn't mention that the amount he was carrying was in excess of a Hundred thousand in currency. why didn't he get a cashier's check? or money order?

also, you didn't mention that he lied to the officer when he was asked if he was arrested before, or if he was transporting Large Amounts of Cash.

and you failed to hint that the K9 unit detected Drug residue on the cash he was carrying and not on other currency that was placed beside the confiscated cash.

So no, his rights were not trampled, he didn't take care of his rights.


Posted a link to the whole article. Also the man was not even charged with let alone convicted of a crime, no matter how suspicious his behavior this was a clear violation of his rights.

Hadn't seen it, but a lot of threads are apearing and disapearing lately. I actualy wondered why this hadn't come up on here.

I can see how this is a big issue but I really don't see why anyone would have an honest reason to carry such a large sum of cash around. If anything he is guilty of criminal stupidity.

Posted a link to the whole article. Also the man was not even charged with let alone convicted of a crime, no matter how suspicious his behavior this was a clear violation of his rights.
they could've charged him, but confiscation of "Drug related items" can be in lew of charging/arrest. of course, Mr Gonsolaz can sue the state to get his money back, but he's got some uncomfortable questions to answer.

and you failed to hint that the K9 unit detected Drug residue on the cash he was carrying and not on other currency that was placed beside the confiscated cash.

there is drug residue on most money that dog must go ape shit in a bank or bake sale

I for one don't use bank accounts so I’ll be screwed if there is a police raid (well for £11~ish its not worth it so I beat the system!)

there is drug residue on most money that dog must go ape shit in a bank or bake sale

I for one don't use bank accounts so I’ll be screwed if there is a police raid (well for £11~ish its not worth it so I beat the system!)the key word is MOST. since they did place cash from other areas next to the money confiscated and the Dog only indicated drugs on that money.

the key word is MOST. since they did place cash from other areas next to the money confiscated and the Dog only indicated drugs on that money.

the big giveaway is if the dog was a sniffer dog it would of also detected drugs on the other money therefore this dog isn’t qualified to be a sniffer dog

yep - it is well known that 75% of the bills in circulation have drug residue on them - this has been shown to be the case with bills from practically every country.

So what that the guy didnt want the cops to know that he was carrying large amounts of cash. I wouldnt either. Maybe he is used to corrupt cops taking peoples money (what do you know? - it happened anyway).

Perhaps he had the money wrapped teh way he did so that it didn't look like cash.

They couldnt prove a crime so they should give him his money back. He shouldnt have to petition for it. Thats pretty fucked. What uncomfortable questions could they ask him that he didnt already get asked?

the key word is MOST. since they did place cash from other areas next to the money confiscated and the Dog only indicated drugs on that money.

yeah they placed like 7 bills from a police officers wallet by it.

against how many bills from the cooler? ridiculous.

This is a clear abuse of power. Unexcusable. I can't believe you are even trying to say this was okay. Are you a police officer perhaps? :confused:

from a lower court judge that found in favor of the defendant:

“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.”

“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,” Judge Lay Concluded.

also a link about cocaine residue on money:
http://tafkac.org/drugs/cocaine.money/cocaine_tainted_money_wsj.html

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati also raised questions about the use of cocaine-tainted cash as evidence in a decision in January involving the seizure of $53,082. The court cited, among other studies, a test conducted four years ago by Lee Hearn, chief toxicologist for the Dade County medical examiner's office in Miami. In a study of currency from banks in cities around the country, Mr. Hearn concluded that 97% of the bills tested positive for cocaine

yeah they placed like 7 bills from a police officers wallet by it.

against how many bills from the cooler? ridiculous.

This is a clear abuse of power. Unexcusable. I can't believe you are even trying to say this was okay. Are you a police officer perhaps? :confused:
point one. they never did state how many bills from the confiscated money was used for the test... for all we know, it could be 1 bill.

Point Two, the drug residue, admitted by the officer, is only a small portion of the evidence. while everyone else is aruging only the drug residue, no one is denying the other points the officer pointed out. while not enough for a conviction, it was enought to warrent confiscation of Drug Paraphinalia. Lying to the officers multiple times, driving back when he has the cash for a ticket, not securing that the truck is still available, the method of this truck sale, a third party renting the truck for Mr. Gonzolez, the method of transporting the cash (sorry, a COOLER? there are better ways of conceiling cash... like say a suitcase with his clothes wrapped arount it? sending most of it back via Western Union, a check from a bank/financial institution...)

if Mr. Gonzolez want's his money back, he can always sue the state. I wish him luck.

point one. they never did state how many bills from the confiscated money was used for the test... for all we know, it could be 1 bill.

Point Two, the drug residue, admitted by the officer, is only a small portion of the evidence. while everyone else is aruging only the drug residue, no one is denying the other points the officer pointed out. while not enough for a conviction, it was enought to warrent confiscation of Drug Paraphinalia. Lying to the officers multiple times, driving back when he has the cash for a ticket, not securing that the truck is still available, the method of this truck sale, a third party renting the truck for Mr. Gonzolez, the method of transporting the cash (sorry, a COOLER? there are better ways of conceiling cash... like say a suitcase with his clothes wrapped arount it? sending most of it back via Western Union, a check from a bank/financial institution...)

if Mr. Gonzolez want's his money back, he can always sue the state. I wish him luck.

Money isnt drug paraphenalia.

Stupidity in handling money is not a valid reason to take someones money from them

A suitcase is more likely to get stolen for what might be inside than an ice chest.

He shouldnt have to sue the state to get his money back.

The way he was travelling and the way he was goign to buy the truck was perfectly legal.

He barely spoke english, so that could be a good reason to have someone rent a car for you.

I also wish him luck in getting his money back and very bad luck to the unsrcupulous assholes that took it from him

point one. they never did state how many bills from the confiscated money was used for the test... for all we know, it could be 1 bill.

Point Two, the drug residue, admitted by the officer, is only a small portion of the evidence. while everyone else is aruging only the drug residue, no one is denying the other points the officer pointed out. while not enough for a conviction, it was enought to warrent confiscation of Drug Paraphinalia. Lying to the officers multiple times, driving back when he has the cash for a ticket, not securing that the truck is still available, the method of this truck sale, a third party renting the truck for Mr. Gonzolez, the method of transporting the cash (sorry, a COOLER? there are better ways of conceiling cash... like say a suitcase with his clothes wrapped arount it? sending most of it back via Western Union, a check from a bank/financial institution...)

if Mr. Gonzolez want's his money back, he can always sue the state. I wish him luck.
So he looked and acted suspicious, thus it's legal for the officer to take his money without charge? Maybe he lied accidentally, because he was intimidated by the police officer's questioning? And now that he hasn't been arrested or charged, why aren't the police returning his money?

So he looked and acted suspicious, thus it's legal for the officer to take his money without charge? Maybe he lied accidentally, because he was intimidated by the police officer's questioning? And now that he hasn't been arrested or charged, why aren't the police returning his money?

Or maybe he lied because he is used to Mexican police. Nice to see we haven't given him any reason to trust the police in the US.

So he looked and acted suspicious, thus it's legal for the officer to take his money without charge? Maybe he lied accidentally, because he was intimidated by the police officer's questioning? And now that he hasn't been arrested or charged, why aren't the police returning his money?acting suspiciously is a reason for investigation.
Maybe he didn't lie accidently.
as for your third point, that's dependant on Nebraska's laws and as I said earlier, Mr Gonzolez can sue the state to get his money back. (wrongful sezure I believe) I wish him luck. Honestly, I do wish him luck.

however, if he doesn't go that route, then one question is, what does Mr Gonzoleze have to hide?

Officers have given breaks to perps before. there was one case, taken from the cop's own dashboard cam, where the officer told the offender to tear up the joints and scatter them to the wind. he could've arrested that man for possession, but he didn't he instead told the driver to destroy the joints, empty the two other small bags he found in the car, and sent the man on his way.

why? perhaps it was because of his wife and baby were in the car also... perhaps the officer was feeling generous... or just didn't want to fill out the paper work. Only the officer knows.

if the cop had enough to confiscate the money, he had enough to arrest the driver. He chose not to arrest the driver while still confiscating the money.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp

The Eighth Circuit Appeals Court ruled that cops have a right to confiscate "large sums of money" because and I quote " Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity'."

The kicker here is that they don't have to convict or even ACUSE you of any crime, nor do they need any evidence aside from the fact that you have a lot of money on you.

How's that for a cival rights violation?

Wouldn't that come under the Fourth?

Rich people are not going to like this.
Yuppers... lol

acting suspiciously is a reason for investigation.


Reason for investigation not theft.

if the cop had enough to confiscate the money, he had enough to arrest the driver. He chose not to arrest the driver while still confiscating the money.

The money and an iffy hit by a K9 unit was ALL he had. If he had enough to arest and charge the man then he should have and if found guilty THEN they would have a right to keep the cash. This is just armed robbery.

Reason for investigation not theft.
The money and an iffy hit by a K9 unit was ALL he had. If he had enough to arest and charge the man then he should have and if found guilty THEN they would have a right to keep the cash. This is just armed robbery.
you didn't read the report did you?

the money, how it was packaged, the amount, the inconsistancies in his answers, the lies he told, the story itself; tho plausible, not convincing... where/who is the man who rented the car for him?
why didn't he just buy another plane ticket to fly home?
why carry the cash... especially after he admitting being told that carrying that amount was illegal?
why hide it in a cooler? there are other more innocuous containers to carry cash like say... a suitcase?
Why cash? why not a bank check?
Who was he going to buy the truck from? why did that person sell the truck if he knew Gonzolez was arriving to purchase said vehicle?
why the need to travel through various states to purchase a truck? was there something special about this truck that no other state had this kind of truck?
why didn't the seller know a buyer was flying in? (which is evident that the seller didn't know since Gonzolez found out the truck was sold when he got there)

and another point. even taking into account that all money has residue drugs on it, why didn't the police dog detect the money the officer borrowed from friends... since he handled the "drug money" would it contaminate the borrowed money also? so the dog would've detected drugs on all, if not some, of the money in that test and not just the confiscated money.

and as I said, he can always sue the state to try to get his money back, infact, by suing the state, he could possibly get more than what was taken.

*happy dance* I have no money for them to take! *hangs head*



I know exactly how you feel :(

you didn't read the report did you?

Yes I did, what are you not understanding about him not being convicted or even acused? No matter how supicious your behavoir that doesn't justify confiscating your money without due process.

The fact that his name was Gonzolez and that he barely spoke english indicates that he was South American - most probably Mexican, and very recently arrived in the US.

Which means he would have been more than used to corrupt police - hence his lying to the officers when stopped. Would you happily tell a couple of Mexican cops that you have several thousand dollars on you?

Also, coming from a third world country, he probably doesn't hold much faith in the banking system. Most Indians and Chinese prefer to keep their money hidden in their homes rather than bank it because you really can't trust the banks in those countries (at least previously, but the tradition still holds). That's why every so often one reads about some poor farmer whose life savings had been eaten by rats or lost when his house burnt down.

Considering his lack of english, he probably wasn't aware of things like money transfers - or how to get one even if he did.

Unless you've ever lived in another country where no-one speaks your language, you have no idea the difficulties involved in arranging money transfers and the like.
Whenever I travel in China, I just take a big wad of money along. It mightn't be prudent or particularly safe but it's by far the easiest and least stressful. I don't trust anyone there with my visa card and going into a bank in rural China and trying to explain that I'd want to take money out of a Hong Kong bank account is basically impossible. Outside the cities, you'll be bloody likely to find anyone who can speak more than a few words of english, and as I can only speak a few words of Chinese it's just easier to travel with a few thousand RMB.

Do you think if I was stopped by a couple of Chinese cops in the middle of nowhere I'd tell them that I was carrying that much money?
Does having that much money on me make me guilty of a crime?

According to Junii apparently it does.


Thus, all he was guilty of was behaving like he was still living in Mexico (or whatever Central/South American country he's from).

So what about the old lady who doesn't trust any banks and keeps her sizable fortune in cash and gold bricks inside a panic room in her mansion?

Yes I did, what are you not understanding about him not being convicted or even acused? No matter how supicious your behavoir that doesn't justify confiscating your money without due process.
and if you read my posts, I did mention that it's dependant on Nebraska's Drug laws.

there may be enough to warrent the confiscation of the money, even without arrest.

the fact that only one judge dissented means what... that either the Nebraska law was upheld, or the entire state is corrupt. which is more likely?

So what about the old lady who doesn't trust any banks and keeps her sizable fortune in cash and gold bricks inside a panic room in her mansion?
who is this woman? does she carry 100,000 in cash on her all the time?

I know of a man who kept his life saving buried in his yard. an ant infestation destroyed it and there was nothing the banks could do to replace it.

The fact that his name was Gonzolez and that he barely spoke english indicates that he was South American - most probably Mexican, and very recently arrived in the US.illegally or legally?

Which means he would have been more than used to corrupt police - hence his lying to the officers when stopped. Would you happily tell a couple of Mexican cops that you have several thousand dollars on you?1) he was told it was illegal to carry that much money on him. so why didn't he ask his "Friend" what he could do? why didn't he purchase another ticket (or have his "friend" buy it for him) to fly back home? why didn't he contact the seller, wire the money and have the truck shipped to him? all of that would've avoided any unfortunate encounters with corrupt policemen... especially if they are that prevaliant in Mexico.

Also, coming from a third world country, he probably doesn't hold much faith in the banking system. Most Indians and Chinese prefer to keep their money hidden in their homes rather than bank it because you really can't trust the banks in those countries (at least previously, but the tradition still holds). That's why every so often one reads about some poor farmer whose life savings had been eaten by rats or lost when his house burnt down. then that's his fault for not trusting the banks, no one can force him to or not to, but he takes his risks, one way or another. he risked on not going to the banks, and he lost.

Considering his lack of english, he probably wasn't aware of things like money transfers - or how to get one even if he did. he spoke enough to indicate that he understood the first officer, and the first officer understood him. and the second officer played translater, and he still lied.

and if he wasn't aware how banks worked, even those basic functions, then he would've lost the money anyway, for his business would go under... especially if he never trusted any institution.

Unless you've ever lived in another country where no-one speaks your language, you have no idea the difficulties involved in arranging money transfers and the like.
Whenever I travel in China, I just take a big wad of money along. It mightn't be prudent or particularly safe but it's by far the easiest and least stressful. I don't trust anyone there with my visa card and going into a bank in rural China and trying to explain that I'd want to take money out of a Hong Kong bank account is basically impossible. Outside the cities, you'll be bloody likely to find anyone who can speak more than a few words of english, and as I can only speak a few words of Chinese it's just easier to travel with a few thousand RMB. 1) he knew enough to barter for the truck through this friend.
2) he knew enough to understand when this "friend" told him that it was illegal to carry money.
3) he was in the AMERICAN police records, so he was here before.
4) there is no indication, except through your assumptions that he is not a native/nationalized American.
5) He understood the officers and still lied to them not a way to endear trust.
6) if he was not a native of America, why didn't he ask for help from his country?
7) he obviously had a drivers licence, and since the report did not say he was a mexican national or indicate he was not native, we can assume that chances are, he is an American Citizen.

Do you think if I was stopped by a couple of Chinese cops in the middle of nowhere I'd tell them that I was carrying that much money?if I was stupid enough to carry that much money, and was asked, then yes, I would tell the cops of any country, the truth. and if that money was taken from me? then I would head to the American Embassy.
Does having that much money on me make me guilty of a crime? if you were told that carrying that amount is illegal, and you still did it? yes.

According to Junii apparently it does.yep.


Thus, all he was guilty of was behaving like he was still living in Mexico (or whatever Central/South American country he's from).you are assuming he's from mexico. there is no indication that he is not an American Citizen. If he became a naturalized citizen, then he would've learn all about our banking system. If I went to live in China, I would not act like I was living in America, but in China.

illegally or legally?

1) he was told it was illegal to carry that much money on him.

Cite? Im STILL unaware of any state in the US where it is illegal to carry large sums of money. Even in this case it nowhwere asserts its illegal to carry large sums of money.

Cite? Im STILL unaware of any state in the US where it is illegal to carry large sums of money. Even in this case it nowhwere asserts its illegal to carry large sums of money.
whether or not it was actually illegal, from the article in the op.

The full text of the ruling is available in a 36k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: US v. $124,700 (http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/moneyseize.pdf) (US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8/19/2006)


and from that link...
In addition, the unidentified friend alerted Gonzolez that it was “bad” to carry more than $10,000 in cash on your person.
oh, and he lived in California...so any thoughts that he has alot of encounters with Bad Cops does not reflect well on the California's Police Force. (aimed at DH.)

so he was warned that it was bad to carry that much on him... yet he chose to drive, and not fly.

so he was warned that it was bad to carry that much on him... yet he chose to drive, and not fly.

Minor factual correction, because he was warned that it was bad to carry that much on him he changed from flying to driving.

and if you read my posts, I did mention that it's dependant on Nebraska's Drug laws.

there may be enough to warrent the confiscation of the money, even without arrest.

the fact that only one judge dissented means what... that either the Nebraska law was upheld, or the entire state is corrupt. which is more likely?

Considering that state law aparently says that someone can have their money confiscated without being convicted of a crime I'm leaning towords the state being corrupt.

Considering that state law aparently says that someone can have their money confiscated without being convicted of a crime I'm leaning towords the state being corrupt.

Your gross lack of historical knowledge is truly appalling.

http://hawaii.gov/ag/criminal_justice/asset/main/history

Forfeiture has been used, literally since ancient times, to take property wrongfully used or acquired. References to forfeiture in the Old Testament, Greek and Roman law indicate that its purpose was to exact a penalty against property which had been used or acquired in connection with some type of prohibited conduct. In modern times, forfeiture is used to protect the public from harmful products and the property of criminal enterprise.

The first statute authorizing civil forfeiture, was enacted by Congress in 1789 as a sanction for the use of ships in customs violations. In 1978, Congress expanded the law to permit forfeiture of all money used in, or acquired from, the illegal drug trade and authorized the forfeiture of real property in 1984.

Federal civil and criminal forfeiture statutes now reach substantially the same offenses and type of property. All fifty states and the District of Columbia now have some type of civil and/or criminal forfeiture statute in effect.

You act as though you're shocked that this is suddenly happenning. Really?

Minor factual correction, because he was warned that it was bad to carry that much on him he changed from flying to driving.

which doesn't make sense, driving though that many states with Cash when flying is faster and cheaper.

add to the fact that he FLEW there in the first place.

then you add on that he didn't find other ways of transporting that monitary wealth...

a series of bad judgement and manuvers which put together all becomes suspicious.

a series of bad judgement and manuvers which put together all becomes suspicious.

and why, exactly, should suspicion mean jack shit? i mean i suspect that you are a meth head, so should we therefore confiscate all your stuff?

and why, exactly, should suspicion mean jack shit? i mean i suspect that you are a meth head, so should we therefore confiscate all your stuff?

ahh.. but here's the crux. why do you suspect me a Meth Head?

What this basically comes down to is that the man in question was never charged with a crime. People in the United States are innocent until proven guilty, thus confiscating his property when the state has not shown (through conviction of a crime) that the money was in any way connected to illegal activity is unconstitutional.

Were he to be convicted of a crime in which the money was gained or if that money were proven to have directly come from criminal activities of someone who was convicted of a crime, then the state would have had some legal basis to confiscate the cash. It is not illegal to carry large amounts of money – where people are probably getting that idea is that it is illegal to take more than $10k in cash out of the country. So long as you are not taking it out of the country, you can carry as much cash as you like.

He was acting suspiciously, but acting suspiciously is in no way proof of a crime.

This precedent opens up things that are roughly equivalent to what happened to a club in DC a few years ago – some club pissed off a local politician who had the police lean on him very hard. It finally got to the point where the cops came in and busted him for selling drug paraphernalia. Anyone care to guess what drug paraphernalia in particular this dance club was busted for selling? Bottles of water. That’s it. Bottled water is drug paraphernalia – ecstasy can dehydrate you (like dancing for hours in a club doesn’t) so if they are selling bottles of water they are facilitating drug use.

So you have a choice – either the man should get his money back (and not have to pay for a lawyer and fight in court to get his own property back) or cops are allowed to confiscate property because they don’t like the way a person looks.

ahh.. but here's the crux. why do you suspect me a Meth Head?

you seem like one. i have no evidence that could get a conviction, obviously, but that apparently doesn't matter.

confiscating his property when the state has not shown (through conviction of a crime) that the money was in any way connected to illegal activity is unconstitutional.

i'm not sure - i'm fairly sure such things have been held constitutional before, at least in some cases.

What this basically comes down to is that the man in question was never charged with a crime. People in the United States are innocent until proven guilty, thus confiscating his property when the state has not shown (through conviction of a crime) that the money was in any way connected to illegal activity is unconstitutional.

Were he to be convicted of a crime in which the money was gained or if that money were proven to have directly come from criminal activities of someone who was convicted of a crime, then the state would have had some legal basis to confiscate the cash. It is not illegal to carry large amounts of money – where people are probably getting that idea is that it is illegal to take more than $10k in cash out of the country. So long as you are not taking it out of the country, you can carry as much cash as you like.

He was acting suspiciously, but acting suspiciously is in no way proof of a crime.

This precedent opens up things that are roughly equivalent to what happened to a club in DC a few years ago – some club pissed off a local politician who had the police lean on him very hard. It finally got to the point where the cops came in and busted him for selling drug paraphernalia. Anyone care to guess what drug paraphernalia in particular this dance club was busted for selling? Bottles of water. That’s it. Bottled water is drug paraphernalia – ecstasy can dehydrate you (like dancing for hours in a club doesn’t) so if they are selling bottles of water they are facilitating drug use.

So you have a choice – either the man should get his money back (and not have to pay for a lawyer and fight in court to get his own property back) or cops are allowed to confiscate property because they don’t like the way a person looks.source on that DC BUST? and as you stated, if knowldege of this pissed politician was known, then there should be something about the investigation in this obvious abuse of power. so please link those please.

add to the acting supiciously, the fact that he lied not only about the large sum of cash (that was also being transported in a suspicous manner.) but the fact that he had prior arrests, could not provide the names of 1) the seller of said truck, 2) the friend he met at the airport, and 3) the friend who rented his car. Why can't he name them? they would provide proof of his story.

And that he was told it was bad to carry that much cash, so he gets a car to drive back? instead of flying back (He flew there, and was not caught, so why not fly back?) obvious holes in his story...

add to that he was carrying that much cash (I wonder HOW? in the cooler?)

he can sue, and in the lawsuite add in the expense for the lawyers. there are ways within the system for him to get his money back... and more. I'm sure there are tons of lawyers who would be willing to fight his fight.

you seem like one. i have no evidence that could get a conviction, obviously, but that apparently doesn't matter.
but Mr Gonzolez was more than just "Seems" like a drug user/dealer, his actions as well as his story provided more than just appearances, so there was more than that. so...

other than the fact that my posts "seems like a meth user"... you have less on me being a meth user than the Cops had on Mr Gonzolez.

but Mr Gonzolez was more than just "Seems" like a drug user/dealer, his actions as well as his story provided more than just appearances, so there was more than that.

no, he wasn't. no, they didn't. no, there wasn't. they had and have nothing.

they could've charged him, but confiscation of "Drug related items" can be in lew of charging/arrest. of course, Mr Gonsolaz can sue the state to get his money back, but he's got some uncomfortable questions to answer.

He did sue the state and was awarded the return of his money. Instead of returning his money the Federal Government immediately appealed the State's decision to return his money. The Feds won the appeal and kept the money which never left their possession.

no, he wasn't. no, they didn't. no, there wasn't. they had and have nothing.

*sigh* Lying to police, the manner of which the money was being trasported, the amount being transported, the inability to name the three others who could prove his innocence. more than just "seems," his whole action was triggering flags for those officers.

and again, if he is innocent (i'm not saying he's not) he can sue the state for damages and get his money back, plus court/lawyer fees, plus damages.

he only appealed the decision. of which only one judge was the dissenting voice. but actually suing the state/and the federal Government will bring all the so called "evidence" out. and he can not only get his money back, but more under the title of "Damages"

He did sue the state and was awarded the return of his money. Instead of returning his money the Federal Government immediately appealed the State's decision to return his money. The Feds won the appeal and kept the money which never left their possession.

really, the transcript only shows the appeal, not that the fact that Mr Gonzolaze Sued.

*sigh* Lying to police

a moral obligation for all people. fuck the pigs.

the manner of which the money was being trasported, the amount being transported

sfw?

the inability to name the three others who could prove his innocence

of what? for why? that's not his job except in bizarro world.

more than just "seems," his whole action was triggering flags for those officers.

well known fact - cops are fucking stupid.

and again, if he is innocent (i'm not saying he's not) he can sue the state for damages and get his money back, plus court/lawyer fees, plus damages.

he only appealed the decision. of which only one judge was the dissenting voice. but actually suing the state/and the federal Government will bring all the so called "evidence" out. and he can not only get his money back, but more under the title of "Damages"

the reason it's in court at all is that he brought suit. otherwise it'd just be gone.

a moral obligation for all people. fuck the pigs.your choice. just take the consequences.

sfw?ahhh.. love the eloquence and simplicency of that answer... :rolleyes:

of what? for why? that's not his job except in bizarro world. why? they would prove that he was going to buy a truck, they can prove that that someone else ligeimately rented the car for him. they can prove that the money was not for drugs.


well known fact - cops are fucking stupid.well, they're Einsteins compaired to Mr Gonzolez.

the reason it's in court at all is that he brought suit. otherwise it'd just be gone.they sued the state, or had a lawyer appeal the decision? two different types of actions.

Three individuals filed claims opposing the forfeiture, not a lawsuit but a challange.