What is Digg?102 Comments
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+61Ridiculous to you, yes. But you're not employed by the government in it's war on drugs. You don't get to keep the money. From their point of view it makes perfect sense. They get to keep the money to use to arrest other people. It's their job to arrest people and/or take their possessions away.
You're thinking rationally. Try thinking from the point of view that "I've got a job to do". The incentive is not to protect people, it is to catch criminals. Which brings us to that legal fiction that the "property committed the crime". This automatically makes it a civil case, and one with a very low burden of proof. The legal fiction continues with the concept that the owner has not been harmed by the confiscation of their property.
Why pick on this poor schmuck and not some high class jeweler with a million dollars in diamonds in his pocket? Simple. The jeweler can defend himself. The schmuck can't.
Like any schoolyard bully, they pick on someone only when they think they can win. - seanl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43It's ridiculous that forfeiture cases are tried under civil law with the accompanying weaker standard of proof. The government is taking a way a person's property because of a crime they think that person committed. In what way is that not a criminal case?
- euphoriadj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35patriot act?
RICO?
War on terror
War on drugs
War on ....
What is it good for? - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33I'll just confiscate that wallet, mister...and while I'm at it, commandeer your car and expropriate your wife.
- friend18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27What happened to innocent until proven guilty? :/
- fanzhango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26I first hear about this story on NPR. I then did a quick search and found more about this case. Here's my original submitted story.
http://www.digg.com/business_finance/US_v_124_700
and here's the NPR link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5691887 - Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Lawyer: "And what were you doing on the day of arrest?"
Money: "..."
Judge: "May I remind you that you are required to answer"
Money: "..." - justinag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21@iconnor
I've heard this "if its legit you can prove it easily" argument before, and I simply cannot understand the mentality. We shouldn't have to prove anything to the government. It should be their job to prove it's not legit. I think jeffiek's comparison to a schoolyard bully is completely accurate.
And being some who who has primarily defense attorneys as clients, I can assure you that innocence alone does NOT guarantee you ANY kind of protection. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20con·fis·cate Pronunciation (knf-skt)
tr.v. con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing, con·fis·cates
1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
2. To seize by or as if by authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.
steal Pronunciation (stl)
v. stole (stl), sto·len (stln), steal·ing, steals
v.tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
The world stolen is more than valid because this person was not convicted of a crime, therefore it was taken "without right". It was taken forcefully from him without right. If he doesn't get his money back, this is officially theft.
The word "confiscated" would be an obvious bias because the word "stolen" can be used accurately while the other can not. - 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21This so-called War on Drugs will never be won and it will never end. Can anyone name any other wars like this that we have declared? The masses don't care, of course, since they have their TVs to watch at night.
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19More here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/21/another-asset-forfeiture-outrage/
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18It looks like the government is winning the "war on [america]", err a, "drugs".
- kakwakas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18I know this gets said on Digg a lot these days, but...
Thoughtcrime, anyone? - biohzrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20@4anwer: the war on terrorism ring a bell?
- g3buz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21maybe he'll spend it on spelling lessons for illiterate, racist douches on digg
- PantherX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16That article was very short... needs more facts. Still a digg though.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17LOL you live in a magical fairy land with cotton candy clouds and licorice trees...or at least, not the US.
- rgov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Court filing: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053295P.pdf
(Took forever to find this sucker...) - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14No, he was guilty of crimethink, which is doubleplusungood.
- elhaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Yeah, the police THOUGHT it was a crime, so they took the cash.
- stealthc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Cool. Thanks. Didn't know it was already submitted. I'll check more broadly next time :)
- eggo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the proper way to point out a dupe. Note the lack of cynicism, malice, or spite.
civil discourse on digg, never thought I'd see the day... - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+121: Vote against any politician who supports the "war on drugs".
2: Vote for any politician who says they will repeal the "war on drugs".
3: When politician breaks their word, see rule number one.
4: Support the Fully Informed Jury Association by handing out pamphlets to prospective jurors that outline how they have the right to decide not only if the "law" was broken as the judge tells them, but also if the punishment fits the crime. A jury can rule "not guilty" for any reason at all, and it's well past time that people in drug cases began to tell the government prosecutors that they have gone too far.
What is needed is enough people to realize that it is the "war on drugs", the "war on poverty", the "war on terrorism", etc etc etc, just as it was the "war on alcohol" when alcohol was illegal, that is providing government with all the power it wants, that this power is the SOURCE of the abuses like this article.
Take away the SOURCE, the conflict of prohibition in a so-called "free" society, and the awful effects will go away. All these abuses come to is the fact that we no longer live in a "free" society. If we did, these prohibitions wouldn't exist. - Mekun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Your right this is very old. They have been doing this for years.
I wanted to withdrawal 3,000 in cash from my bank to buy some furniture and my bank insisted i get a cashiers check,I felt like i was under investigation. They made me feel like i was some drug lord.
I like cash, keeps credit debt down. Screw credit card company's and banks. - idreamincode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Commandeering is an act of appropriation by the military or police whereby they take possession of the property of a member of the public. The most common use of the term is when police commandeer vehicles – a popular plot element in films, particularly those involving car chases.
-wikipedia - mwsherman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11My question is, What can we do to help this guy? If internet pressure got that guy who took photos from Flickr and attributed them to himself to admit wrongdoing, surely we can at least make some headway for justice on this. Any ideas?
- da404lewzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12canada sounds better and better every day...
- samcrut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Sooo... If driving with large sums of cash is evidence of drug activity, there must be some seriously heinous activities going on at the Walmart. I see several people loading large bags of money into armored trucks on pretty much a daily basis. I want to see those cops pull over the Wells Fargo truck and apply the exact same legal process as they did to this poor guy.
- ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10innocent until proven guilty no longer applies in a post 911 - patriot act world. Those who say "as long as your not doing anything wrong you don't need your civil liberties" need to wake the ***** up.
- saumanahaii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I read it, and honestly, I can see the government's case. However, I have to agree with Judge Lay's opinion. The dog sniff is useless given that there are trace amounts of drugs over a lot of the money out there. While I can see the arguament the Government made, I still have to say this reeks of prejudice. The explanation for lying was good to me, as was the hiding of the money. Also, there was no evidence of any sort of drugs besides for the canine sniff, which is not valid because of the presence of drugs on money.
While suspicious, there was not enough evidence to support confiscating the money. Lay was right. - nXZeVAI4wT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8CurtHowland wrote "A jury can rule "not guilty" for any reason at all, and it's well past time that people in drug cases began to tell the government prosecutors that they have gone too far." Support the Fully Informed Jury Association? Yes! Yes! Yes!
Fully Informed Jury Association
http://www.fija.org/ - stealthc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ImTheDarkcyde
Is the word really "confiscated?" I always thought taking something that wasn't yours was theft, and that doing so with the threat of violence was robbery. Don't get sucked in by the imaginative semantics of bureaucrats. They use softened words to make their aggressions sound legitimate.
If I dress up in a costume called a "uniform," it doesn't suddenly become legal for me to take a man's life savings at gunpoint, no matter what it smells like. - jwegan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The point of the article is though that the connection was tenous at best. The sole reason for linking the money to drugs was that the dog barked at the money in a rental car which has been used by dozens of people to transport god knows what.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8How many years of hard labor did these pigs steal from this guy?
Assume his poor English skills give him a little over minimum wage.
$124,700 / $7/hour = 17814 working hours
17814h / 2000h/year = 9 YEARS!
(more since taxes were probably paid on it and he has to eat during that time).
These ***** just stole 9 years of his life! - carlosglz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8A 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.
On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.
Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.
"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of
drug use or distribution."
"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," Judge Lay Concluded. - Mekun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The guys story is pretty suspicious, but i don't care if he is a drug dealer or not. The point should be they need to have proof before they cant take whats yours. Solid proof not a gut feeling .
- gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7the idea that you can take money to court for being to plentiful is mind-bogglingly funny!!
- altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The laws allowing cops to confiscate all the property of an individual suspected of being involved in drugs and not have to return it even if the person if found innocent have been on the books since the Regan days. This isn't anything new.
- kevin2735, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"althought he committed no crime and they couldnt associate the money to drugs,"
There is a distinct difference from not having enough evidence to prove a crime has been committed and not having commited a crime. Based upon what I read, I believe it is very likely that a drug related crime may have been committed, but there is no way know for certain. Give the guy his money back. Asset forfeiture stemming from illegal drug trade benefit law enforecment in many ways. Any abuse of this law will endanger it's legitimate use in the future. - reed311, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It is not against the law to have a lot of money. In fact, you can withdraw all of your money from the bank and carry it around in a large sack if you wanted to. If there is no evidence of drugs then the money should be returned immediately. Regardless, it violates the man's right to due process.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6had a friend lose a boat by returning from international waters with one joint on board. He didnt even know it was there. The coast guard stopping him was no big deal, until they took his boat. He also was not charged with anything.. not even simple possession. They only wanted his boat.
I understand the theory behind the law. You dont want crime money to be used for a defence, but when you start, to take away peoples property for no real crime, there begins to e a problem.
FOrfeiture is one of the most unamerican laws there ever has been.. and some small towns take it too new levels. - HallsOfMandos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It is 'innocent until proven guilty,' not the other way around.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is AMERICA! The cops don't need a warrant. Warrants are so 18th century.
- asurroca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@beotch:
Dude, that's assuming that he saved 100% of his income, which is unreasonable. Let's say he saved a quarter of his income (more realistic). Then, that 9-work-years of money took him 27 years to save up. Literally, this had to have been his entire life savings. - biohzrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What about a civilian's arrest on the assumption that they are drug runners? I wonder if that would work...
- nXZeVAI4wT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually, the story is very believable. Poor people often have no bank accounts and save their cash. Several people were trying to live the "american dream," work hard and you can achieve anything. If several of them wanted to start a business of their own, pooling their cash to buy the truck is exactly how they'd do it.
The case highlights prejudice but also straight-up intolerance. The police and judges couldn't imagine why some people have very good, legal reasons for carrying a large bundle of cash. It's was too far out of police/judge's own life-experience. The intolerance? Rather than revise their worldview, when they heard why poor people sometimes legitimately carry large cash bundles, they simply refused to accept the new information. They chose to disregarded it. I guess that would be called, what, classism? Talk about a lack of empathy. No ability or desire to see life through another's eyes. - NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Heh, I got modded down. You doubt my words? You dont think with the wiretapping and all the other illegal ***** they've done that they wouldnt?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."
- NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14All that we'll get is our names put in some terrorist database and be searched if we ever need to take a plane.
- jefree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Reverse the Police State. Demand rollbacks of omnipowerful laws and restore freedom. Demand that the constituition be followed. Vote status quo politicians out of office from both parties. WE NEED TO GET FREEDOM AGAIN!!!!!!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is