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.
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).