Are Civil Liberties Collateral Damage In The War on Drugs?
Next time you go for a drive, you might wanna leave your wallet at home. Last Friday, the Eighth Circuit court of appeals ruled that police can confiscate large sums of cash from motorists without any other evidence of wrongdoing. The decision in "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" found that "possession of a large sum of cash is strong evidence of a connection to drug activity." In this particular case, a man neither accused or convicted of a crime lost his life savings because a Nebraska State Trooper found him suspicious. Despite how suspicious he may or may not have been, this precedent seemingly shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. It also reinforces American Express's long standing tag line: "Don't leave home without it."
Sources: United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency & Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime
By Emil Steiner | August 23, 2006; 11:31 AM ET | Category: OFF/beat Politics
Posted by: Kirk Muse | August 23, 2006 4:07 PM
It is a shame how the war on drugs and the war on terror have really been a war on the bill of rights.
Posted by: Hepp | August 23, 2006 4:57 PM
Disgusting! I've never been able to understand how these kind of things can happen
Posted by: linton | August 24, 2006 12:42 PM
I think police are justified in confiscating $127,000 cash found inside the cooler of a rental car that isn't even registered to the guy driving the car. Moreover he couldn't speak English and drug dog smelled something.
Posted by: Big Bro Hater | August 24, 2006 2:58 PM
Guilty until proven innocent?
Posted by: yung-un | August 25, 2006 4:19 AM
damn right... whats next the NSA starts tapping phones to find "terrorists?"
Posted by: | August 25, 2006 7:59 AM
Does anyone actually think we were better off now than we were before Bush was elected? He's packed the courts with right wing judges wasted all our money on a losing war and taken away our civil liberties. America's in a pretty sorry state now. I didn't support Gore in 2000... sure wish i could have that vote back.
Posted by: Kerry | August 27, 2006 3:53 PM
A person is clueless who thinks that because of the mere fact a drug dog alerted on a rental car and a large bunch of cash, therefore the car's driver/money's owner should be suspected of drug trafficking and the money subject to confiscation. It's common knowledge that a given piece paper money often retains residual traces of illegal substances picked up in any manner of ways during its lifetime. E.g. "Joe Blow", a recreational drug user, rolls up a $20 bill and uses it to insufflate cocaine, puts it back in his wallet, uses that bill and others at a store to make a purchase; the store deposits the money at the bank; "John Smith", an law-abiding citizen, goes to the bank's teller and withdraws some money from his account--voila, he may very well now be in possession of money connected with drugs. Multiply that effect by an exponentially larger number given the amount of money Gonzolez's possessed, and it's no big wonder that a drug dog may have alerted on the money--under the right conditions they can pick up the scent of miniscule (microscopic?) amounts of the substance they are trained to detect. Drug dogs are also not immune to "false positives." Figure into the equation that the rental car may have retained traces of drugs from a previous operator, a recreational user or a small-time trafficker (why risk confiscation of a personal vehicle if discovered in possession of illegal drugs and one isn't brazen or big-time enough to use a stolen vehicle to transport the drugs), etc. There's a complete lack of anything but (or even?!) the most tenuous circumstantial evidence, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or any other good legal basis for what happened in this case or the courts' reasoning about it. Welcome to the new America.
Posted by: Common Knowledge | August 29, 2006 12:30 PM
That's the best name I've ever heard of for a coke head, besides Nose-stradamus
Posted by: Joe Blow | August 29, 2006 5:49 PM
Well done!
My homepage | Please visit
Posted by: Ellen | September 2, 2006 7:35 AM
what is your website?
Posted by: | September 2, 2006 1:59 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Our personal freedom is just collateral damage in our so-called war on drugs.
Adult citizins cannot decide for themselves what substances they can put into thier own bodies--even in the privacy of our their own homes.
Today our government dictates which (politically selected) recreational drugs we may or may not consume. Note that Viagra is OK but marijuana is not. Note that tobacco is OK but marijuana is not.
Tomorrow our nanny-state government will dictate which foods we may or may not conusme.