Digman said:
I know a story of someone who found 1 million in a briefcase. He didn't spend a single dollar for five years. Then he started, little by little, to pay his bills while saving his own money, and only after ten years, he told it to his grandson, aged 30.
I saw the grandpa many times, and I remember that he had a very calm face !!!
I don't know if I'm that wise or not. We'll find out if I ever find a big stash of cash. But how's this article for timely? A couple of comments first. To begin with, if you are driving with a large amount of money you shouldn't be speeding, especially if you are driving a vehicle that was rented by someone else. Second, don't lie to the cops. You are far better invoking your right decline to answer questions than to lie. Just say you are not breaking the law in any way and that you decline to answer any other questions. Third: NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER consent to a search of your vehicle, property or person. If you do consent to a search whatever they find and sieze is adjudicated in civil court, not criminal court. That means the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt." Deny permission for a search, make them get a warrant (if they can) and find it the hard way. Don't cave in no matter how much they try to intimidate you or scare you. You don't get into any more trouble if they have to get a warrant than if you gave them permission. Then if they do find and sieze anything you have your day in criminal court where the burden of proof is much higher, and if you haven't committed any crimes than you are in a better position to have your money returned to you. Fourth, if you are going to travel with a large amount of money, run it through the washing machine before you do. See earlier post. And remember, the cops don't need your permission or probable cause to run a drug dog around your car, and if he signals on something they have the right to investigate further. It's commone knowledge that most money has measurable amounts of drugs on it. Not cleaning it is just an invitation for the cops to sieze it. Not to mention that that much money has all kinds of diseases on it. Fifth, hide it better than in a cooler on the back seat. Finally, read the reasoning of the court very carefully: "We have adopted the commonsense view that bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking." Catch that? "Bundling and concealment" of a large amount of money contributes to a "commonsense view" that not only is illegal activity in play, but specifically drug trafficing. I guess in the eyes of the court it is far better to leave the money on the seat in plain view. Now, with all that said I do believe this guy was probably running drug money for drug traffickers. With that much money he could have bought a plane ticket back home instead of getting someone to rent a car (I'd never rent a car for anyone!) and driving back. But the facts as presented in the article don't provide any specific evidence that he was involved in drug trafficking. That's like saying because you had a metal detector in your car you are involved in the looting of gold from federal land. Sorry for the rant, but man! This kind of stuff torques my hiney. To the local, state and federal law enforcement authorities, everything is drug related.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/merc...s/california/northern_california/15310257.htm
Posted on Fri, Aug. 18, 2006
Court rules 2003 money seizure correct despite no drugs found
CHUCK BROWN
Associated Press
OMAHA, Neb. - Authorities were correct to assume nearly $125,000 they seized from a California man's car during a traffic stop may have been connected to narcotics trafficking, despite finding no drugs in the vehicle, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.
The ruling from the three-judge panel overturned an earlier decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Thalken in Nebraska in the case of Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez. A state trooper stopped Gonzolez for speeding on Interstate 80 on May 28, 2003.
Gonzolez's lawyer, Donald Yates of San Diego, said they would appeal the ruling. He said the government is treating unfairly people who don't have credit or bank accounts and are forced to do business in cash.
"They do not allow for anybody to have a lifestyle different from the average person in Nebraska," Yates said.
Gonzolez was driving a car that he told officers had been rented by a man named "Luis." Gonzolez also said he had never been arrested and that he was not carrying drugs, guns or large amounts of money.
After Gonzolez consented, the car was searched and $124,700 in cash was found in a cooler in the back seat. Authorities also learned that Gonzolez had once been arrested for driving while intoxicated and that the person registered as having rented the car was not named "Luis."
A drug dog later detected the scent of narcotics on the money and seat where the money was found.
Gonzolez testified that he lied about having the money because he believed that carrying large sums of money might be illegal. He said he secreted it inside the cooler because he feared it could be stolen while he was on the road.
He planned on using the money to buy a refrigerated truck in Chicago, Gonzolez said, but after arriving there by airplane from California he learned the truck had been sold. He decided to rent a car and drive back to California but needed someone else to rent the car because he had no credit card, he said.
Gonzolez also said he didn't tell officers about his previous arrest because he didn't think driving while intoxicated was a crime.
A federal judge in Nebraska said the evidence was not strong enough to link the money to drug trafficking, but the 8th Circuit Court on Thursday disagreed.
"We believe that the evidence as a whole demonstrates ... that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense," the court wrote. "We have adopted the commonsense view that bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking."
In dissent, Judge Donald Lay said the evidence provided was not enough to conclude the money was used in drug trafficking.
"At most, the evidence presented suggests the money seized may have been involved in some illegal activity - activity that is incapable of being ascertained on the record before us," Lay wrote. "Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense."
About 10 yrs ago a couple of brilliant Detroit residents found a large bag of unmarked cash that had fallen out of an Armored Car. It was in small bills & untraceable!
