Apparently, yes.
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
Clearly, the details are important here. But shouldn't the money -- or at least the owner -- be actually connected to a crime before police can seize his property?
crime, midtopia
2 comments:
Drug laws have become so perverse the state doesn't even have to prove a case to confiscate property. Note that Gonzolez was not charged or convicted of any crime. It was the cash, not the person, that was suspected of criminal conduct.
In my blog on this I wrote, "the Nebraska Highway Patrol committed highway robbery. Aided and abetted by the Learned Judges of the Eighth Circuit, they have stolen the life saves of humble men just trying to earn an honest living."
I'm not so quick to jump to the conclusion that the men are innocent or honest -- their story is pretty whacky. But I agree that the police really ought to first establish that a crime has been committed before they can seize money connected to that crime.
This is like convicting someone of murder without ever identifying a victim.
Post a Comment