Posted on 03/08/2006 10:00:00 AM PST by steel_resolve
He wasn't charged with a crime.
Nothing wrong with taking that cash to a bank and getting a Cashier's Check. Or it he insists on carrying cash, exchanging it for larger denominations, making it easier to conceal. Or wiring it to a bank in Chicago where he could then withdraw it.
Lots of options.
The defendant was the money. Read the decision.
Here we go again with your circular arguments (I think this is the fourth time I've been by this point. I believe "So what?" comes next in your routine).
He wasn't charged with a crime. There was absolutely no linkage of this money to a crime. By the court's own precedent, they did not make a nexus between the money and criminal activity. Therefore, by their own precedent the money should have been returned.
About the third time I've seen that one. You've demanded the person in question demonstrate the money was not obtained illegally. He gave explanations. Meanwhile, the government failed to connect the money to criminal activity, and failed to reach the evidentary standard of preponderance of the evidence. So the court simply threw out it's own precedent to lower that standard.
This decision is a lovely bookend to Kelo for you statist types.
A minute ago you claimed it wasn't a "significant" nexus.
Having trouble keeping your story straight?
Here we go again. Where in the federal register is it a crime to have a large sum of money in your possession?
Nitpicking pinhead. But that's all you have left. You have YET to demonstrate any kind of nexus to a criminal act, period. Drug residue on cash is not a valid nexus by the court's own precedent, which they ignored.
The standard is the totality of the facts. You know, those things you keep ignoring.
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).
No, it's own precedent was a nexus to criminal activity. Read the dissent. With a cite to the precedent.
We therefore conclude that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant currency was substantially connected to a narcotics offense.
He claimed the cash was for the purchase of a used Ford Pinto that he heard about from a friend of the cousin of the next door neighbor who knew a guy that had one for sale .... but it was already sold.
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).
$2000 for the Pinto and $100 for the mahogany veneer rifle rack.
Only when flying from east to west -- it's kind of a Feng Shui thing with him.
While violating their own precedent that said there had to be a nexus to actual criminal activity. Since you are unable to show such, you have no case. I'll leave you here to see if you can engage someone else in your circular logic tar-baby.
At long last, paulsen comes up with a sentiment that most everyone on FR can agree with.
It not a crime. Not even when that money is a very large amount of cash, consisting of bills of small denominations, with traces of cocaine residue, wrapped in aluminum foil, in a plastic bag, in a cooler, in the backseat of a car rented by a unknown individual (not the driver), driving 2000 miles from a "drug destination" state to a "drug source" state.
What it IS is suspicious and indicative of drug activity, especially when combined with other factors -- the main one being a believable explanation for it.
Put a cooler of cash in the trunk of that car and his "logic" also provides a utopia for drug traffickers.
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.