HOW HAVING TOO MUCH CASH CAN BE A BAD THING

Amazingly, a federal appeals courts forfeited cash holding that the possessing, carrying, or transporting a large sum of cash creates a strong suspected connection to drug trafficking.  U.S. v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, 458 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2006).  In the case of U.S. v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, a Hispanic man was stopped for speeding on I-80 in Nebraska.  The $124,700 was found in a cooler in the rented vehicle the man was driving.  The trial court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove, by a preponderance standard, that the money had a substantial connection to drug trafficking.  The court found the explanation the man offered as plausible.  The appellate court reversed in part because “Possession of a large sum of cash is “strong evidence” of a connection to drug activity, …” U.S. v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, at 826.  The dissent noted “that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money. 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.”  U.S. v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, 458 F.3d at 827.  The dissent went on to criticize the majority’s decision by pointing out that other decisions within the district had rejected similar forfeiture arguments when there was an insufficient nexus, or connection, between the money found and drug activity.  A police dog alerted to the presence of drugs on the currency and the exterior rear portion of the rented car.  As the dissent points out, however, this was a rental car which undoubtedly had been used by several people.  Had drugs been used near the rear of the car, there is no way to determine who used the drugs.  Additionally, it common knowledge that most currency has trace amounts of narcotics on it.  The dissent pointed out that this fact was recognized by the Justice Souter in a recent case.

            I think that this violates a person’s Fifth Amendment rights, due process rights, and possibly equal protection.  I think that the problem in this case is that the police and the appellate court looked at suspicious activity and allowed the police to forfeit the money despite insufficient evidence to connect the money to any illegal activity.  As a former prosecutor, I have heard cops talk about suspecting someone committing crimes but not being able to prove it.  That is the situation we have here but instead of the cops not being allowed to take action, the court endorses the cops to forfeit money without sufficient evidence that the money is connected to any illegal activity.  This creates an odd situation where the cops are like highway bandits who can stop you and take your money and the courts will support the cops if the amount of money is large enough.  Finally, I cannot ignore that this was a Hispanic man stopped in Nebraska.  I think that if this were a white man in his 50’s, then the forfeiture would have never occurred.  Therefore, be warned that by carrying or transporting large sums of money, you risk losing it.  To see what areas of law I practice in, visit my website at http://www.ellislawfirm.pro/.