Posted on 03/08/2006 10:00:00 AM PST by steel_resolve
HARRISBURG -- Cash with far higher-than-normal trace levels of cocaine can be seized as contraband from speeding drivers, a divided state appeals court ruled today.
The 5-2 Commonwealth Court decision concerned the seizure of $451,000 from two separate vehicle stops by state police on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in 2002 and 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at postgazette.com ...
If the state took a huge pile of money from me and the prosecutor called me a drug dealer, I'd feel like I was being punished. That's not punishment?
If you acquired that money illegally and all they took was the money, you really should consider yourself lucky that they didn't have enough evidence to convict you of whatever you did to get that money.
Criminal questions are answered in criminal court using criminal proof standards. The case is against the money, not the person.
OK, so why is the question of illegality not a criminal question? It doesn't seem like a civil question. What am I missing there?
Contraband isn't property.
Like hell it isn't. And beyond that, this turns the Constitutional standard for burden of proof on it's ear. Once the money is seized (without due process), the government does not have to prove the money was used criminally - intead, the defendent has to prove it was not. Which means they have to prove a negative.
Can you request certified " cocaine free " currency from your bank?
As usual, you miss the point. The burden of proof needs to be on the government that the money was obtained illegally. Instead, the government makes the other party prove the money was not obtained illegally. Given that cash by nature often tends to not leave a trail (which is why government hates it), that can be quite difficult - especially for many legal immigrants, who use cash for cultural reasons.
By your definition, the forty bucks cash in my wallet right now can be contraband if the government deems it so. I happen to consider it my property, and if a mugger took it, the government would prosecute him. But if the government takes it, I have to fight THEM to get it back.
If you are discovered to have $40 in counterfeit currency in your wallet, it's subject to seizure. It doesn't matter whether you knew it was counterfeit or not and there is no requirement that you be convicted of counterfeiting.
It's not counterfeit. But it's telling that lame attempt was the best you could do. Shows just how morally and intellectually bankrupt the defenders of these actions have become.
So? Money recieved from the sale of drugs is subject to seizure, just like counterfeit money, whether the person with the cooler full of cash wrapped in aluminum foil was the dealer or an unwitting mule.
If you buy a stolen car, it's subject to seizure upon discovery. You may not have known that the car was stolen and you might not be prosecuted, but the car is still gone.
If the government proves the money is from the sale of drugs, they should seize it.
However, they seize the money and then force the other party to prove it WASN'T from the sale of drugs. I know you drug warrior types have difficulty with that subtle difference, but please try.
Oh, and it is documented that just about all cash in the US, including the forty bucks in my wallet, has traces of cocaine on it. So to a sane person, that is not sufficient proof.
Using your "logic", the government could seize any car and them make the other party prove it wasn't stolen to get it back.
If you're caught speeding while driving with no registration and you tell the officer that you borrowed the vehicle from a friend whose name you can't remember, it's getting impounded. Produce the friend and the registration, you get it back.
Your "logic" would provide a utopia for car thieves.
They do. If there's good reason to believe that the money is from the sale of drugs it's also seized and held pending resolution of the matter.
That's what happened here.
No, they seize the money whether or not the person has any drugs on them or whether they have any accusation of drug trafficing. And now courts have said the government doesn't have to return the money even if the person is not convicted of any drug criminality.
You are bobbing and weaving to avoid the stark truth here - the government can now seize cash with no evidence that it was involved in criminal activity. And then force the other party to assume the burden of proof to get it back - which means the other party has to prove a negative.
I know you drug warrior types could care less, but larger public opinion is turning against you. Especially when your rationalizations are as weak as you have shown here.
Now, let's say I get pulled over for speeding. The car is legally in my possession. I have shown no indication that I have engaged in a crime, but the cop thinks the car is too expensive for the likes of me to afford, even though the registration is in my name. So he confiscates it.
THAT is what is happening here. Your way creates a utopia for police-state types.
Yeah. So?
the government can now seize cash with no evidence that it was involved in criminal activity.
Repeating your falsehood won't make it true.
The circumstantial evidence in this case would convince anyone without a drug legalization agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.