Subscribe!The courts have given the government the right to take money from people simply because they were in possession of large sum of cash. In a story a few weeks old, Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez had $124,700 taken from his possession. Gonzolez had been driving a rented car on I80 when a Nebraska state trooper, Chris Bigsby, pulled him over for a speeding violation. The trooper found that Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract, and so began questioning him. Gonzolez did not speak much English. The trooper searched the car and found $124,700 cash in a cooler, which he confiscated. A drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and cash, apparently all the evidence they needed to establish a drug crime and keep the seized money.
That's right, the police can take your money just because a trained dog barks at it. Never mind that the currency you have in your possession may have been in shady circumstances before reaching your innocent hands. Never mind the tens or hundreds of people that may rent a car over the course of a year. If you are unlucky enough to get barked at, you can have your money seized.
No problem, though, right? Surely the courts will straighten everything out since that's what their job is. On August 18, our judicial system failed us again. The Eighth Circuit Court dimissed Gonzolez's explanation of the situation. In overturning a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity the court stated (U.S. Court of Appeals Case No. 05-3295) "...we respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion. We believe that the evidence as a whole demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense. Possession of a large sum of money is "strong evidence" of a connection to a drug activity... " (bold added for emphasis to a preposterous statement). So, just because you are carrying a large sum of money it can be taken away from you because it constitutes "strong evidence" of connection to drug activity. Never mind if you've never been charged with or found guilty of a drug crime, never mind that no actual drugs, drug paraphernailia, or other evidence was recovered, just the fact that you are carrying money is enough to have it taken from you. At least not all of the judges have lost their minds as Judge Donald Lay offered a strong dissent.
So much for "innocent until proven guilty". The government has discovered a way to take money from innocent individuals based on purely illogical reasoning, that since many drug dealers carry large sums of cash then everyone carrying a large sum of cash is a drug dealer. This case is just one more example of the decline of American freedom in the 21st century.
