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 ...
Yep, when I withdraw cash from a bank to buy a truck, and they ask me how I want that money, I ask them to "mix it up".
After all, if I'm going to be carrying $124,700 around the country, I want it A) as bulky as possible and B) to look as much like drug money as possible.
Once again, their own precent said there had to be a nexus between the cash and actual criminal activity. And another precent of theirs said the canine activity was a minor indicator, given the fact that drug residue is often present on cash.
So tell me again - where was there ANY nexus of the cash to criminal activity? Or are courts now allowed to simply suppose criminality without demonstrating such? Sane people get alarmed by that prospect. Drug warriors cheer it on.
Oh, and the only drug I think should be decriminalized (not legalized) is pot - the rest should remain illegal. However, one can be for fighting hard drugs without throwing out basic Constitutional standards wholesale in the process.
A lot of immigrants don't use banks. Nice try, though.
Nice foot shot.
But lots of "immigrants" fly across the country on a one way ticket carrying $125,000 in cash to buy a truck from someone whose name and address they can't remember after being caught by the police.
Nice foot shot.
Hardly. Their own precent said that wasn't a signficant indicator to prove a nexus.
Fire another blank.
So once again, which of those activities are criminal? Where is the nexus to actual, demonstratable criminal activity, which the court's own precedent required?
I love the part of his story where he claims he had the money all the time and flew out carrying it, but decided not to fly back with it because he was nervous about flying with that much money on him.
You've gone from no nexus to it wasn't significant enough. And ignored the factual context of his bogus story.
BTW, where's the truck?
No it's not. You're referring to "judicial activism".
Which it's not. This case cited numerous other cases as precedent.
This is why people form militia groups.
Once again, presence of drug residue is common on currency. It's probably on money I've had on my wallet recently.
There is no connection to any specfic allegation or evidence of criminality here. The court overturned two of its own precedents in this ruling.
Yep.
We review any predicate factual findings for clear error, but the ultimate conclusion as to whether those facts establish a “substantial connection” between seized currency and a narcotics transaction is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. See United States v. Dodge Caravan Grand SE/Sport Van, 387 -6- F.3d 758, 761 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. $84,615 in U.S. Currency, 379 F.3d 496, 501 (8th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. $117,920.00 in U.S. Currency, 413 F.3d 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2005).
Wallet? You don't keep your money wrapped in foil in a cooler in a car you don't own mixed with money from "friends"?
I see this will be the typical circular argument with you. Since you cannot demonstrate any nexus to any criminal activity here, you will just throw up the various indicators one by one.
Militia Leader Faces Drug ChargesA leader who once described his South Dakota organization as "the average Joe militia" faces federal charges of possessing and selling amphetamines — a business the man told authorities he was running in order to fund his Tri-States Militia.
Prosecutors say Michael D. Bridge Jr., 41, was arrested with $2,100 in cash after delivering an ounce of the drug to a woman last December. Investigators found another ounce at his home in Rapid City, S.D. If convicted of the single count of possession of amphetamine with intent to distribute, Bridge faces up to 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine.
And your O.J. jury mentality ignores the totality of the evidence.
If that was all the prosecution had, you'd have a point. They had much more than that.
Again, the court looked at the totality. They even said so in their opinion. Their opinion starts off, "The totality of these circumstances – the large amount of ..."
A "connection to drug activity" is more than simply traces of cocaine on money. That, combined with just about everything else Mr. Gonzales did, was a connection to drug activity.
"A large amount of small denomination bills, 'bundled and packaged so as to avoid detection'" is a connection to drug activity. "Paying cash for a one-way airline ticket" is another, especially when it is from "a 'drug source' state to a 'drug destination' state".
This kangaroo court didn't even meet the statutory standard of preponderance of the evidence, nor did they meet their own standard of a nexus to actual criminal activity.
Meanwhile, you keep saying the evidentary burden of proof is on the defendent to show the money is not related to criminal activity (i.e., proving a negative), whereas the statute puts the burden of proof on the government to prove it is. So you can't even adhere to the actual statutes, even less than the court did. /surprise.
But such is the language of usurpation and its cheerleaders.
Demonstrate ONE CONNECTION to an actual allegation of criminality in that laundry list. Which the court's own precedent required.
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.