Probably more than you.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Not in America, Pro, innocent until PROVEN guilty. This is one of the problems with the rising tide of fascism in this country, people are way too willing to bypass the legal system and pass summary judgment on people they SUSPECT of doing something wrong. I know of no case in history where this kind of drift towards fascist thinking lead to a good outcome.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

Fair enough, reasonable doubt, the man should have been legally arrested and been dealt with through the judicial system--not just had the money confiscated. If he turns out to be innocent then he should get the money back. Even the Red Chinese will do that with your Leatherman.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

I agree, if he's innocent than the money should be returned.
I don't know why, but I have this feeling that the whole story wasn't posted....I will be looking for more information later tonight.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs...moneyseize.pdf

When the state seizes property the burden is upon the state to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the property seized is connected to a crime, in this instance drug activity. The district court which initially ruled on the case found no preponderance of evidence noting that Gonzalez and his friends had no prior criminal record in regards to drug activity. Only Gonzalez had a prior which was a DUI. The court also found that the manner in which the money was bundled was consistent with keeping the different amounts contributed by individuals in separate bundles.

The de novo finding, from a logical standpoint, is nothing more than an opinionated disagreement from the higher court without any basis in fact. They merely conclude that a large sum of money is evidence enough of "drug activity" despite the lack of any other evidence leading to such a conclusion.

The dissent in this case is the only reasonable piece of judicial work achieved by the Eight Circuit.

However, one thing is clear. Gonzalez doesn't appear to be a very smart man. The lack of any strong evidence supporting his story or that of the state I would believe that the law must side with Gonzalez. In this case the state failed to provide a preponderance of evidence required to seize the money.

Of course, I'm not a judge so my opinion doesn't count for shit.

I agree with you there. Sorry for my flippant remark.

"a non-english speaking man" - So not speaking English means you cannot have money except from a drug deal?

car not in name - This means the money inside the car was from a drug deal?

"carrying $124,000 in cash" - And this somehow proves that it was from drug deals? Are you saying that if he split it up into $1000.00 piles and carried those individually, it would not be from a drug deal? For some reason, I do not see the connection between "large sum of money" and "definitely from a drug deal." Is drug money the only money that can be carried with large quantities of other money?

"not to mention that a trained dog sniffed out the money........I wish they'd had run a lad test on the money to see if traces were available" - Did you even read the OP? Here, I'll quote it for you again to make it easier.

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Business (Drug Money)

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

IMO….bullshit.
While I'll agree that most money has some sort of drug residue on it, it must be a very small amount or else why do they use drug dogs.....If the dogs could detect the amount of drugs left these bills, they'd go nuts and wouldn't be worth a crap....
For the dog to locate the money in this case, I am guessing that it had a high enough content to be relatively fresh.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Yeah, and most people don't carry enough money to have such a high concentration of cocaine.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

If you take a dog into a bank, the dog will probably alert to some of the money in the bank. Taking 7 pieces of currency there is a good chance that theres no cocaine on any of them, take several hundred pieces and that chance dwindles.

e.g. if a drug dog will alert to one out of every ten pieces of currency there is about a 50% chance the dog will alert to a random grouping of 7 pieces.

but there is 99.5% chance he will alert to random grouping of 50 pieces.

Further simply that the money may have passed through the hands of a drug dealer doesn't mean that the person who has the currency presently had anything to do with it. What is necessary to prove is that the money is the direct result of a crime, the simple fact that it may have been used in a crime at some point in the past is not sufficient evidence to tie that crime to its current holder.

you really don't understand how the law works do you?

They're called false positives

CASE LAW ON DOGS RELIABILITY / TRAINING

Again, if I end up with a twenty dollar bill which was formerly carried by a drug dealer is not sufficient evidence to seize even that single twenty dollar bill without compensation unless they can prove that I was in someway involved in crime.

Sure I do............Well somewhat, I’m no lawyer.
I should have used two sentences though for “By reasonable doubt” and “I believe there was doubt”.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Good link, thanks........But I still say something is up with the guy and would not be surprised if drugs weren't involved.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

It sure is good to know we live in a country where saying "something is up with the guy" is is not enough to confiscate all of his money. Oh wait...

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Thanks for the update......IMO, something just sounds fishy to the story....I may be wrong though, but it smells like tuna to me.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.