Aurora [Illinois] is trying to keep a little more than $190,000 it seized from two brothers after one of them was pulled over in a traffic stop that didn’t even result in a traffic ticket.
Officials have refused to hand back the money even though a judge has sided with the brothers. The matter is due back in court today.
Jesus Martinez, 27, was carrying $190,040 when his pickup truck was stopped by an Aurora police officer about 8:30 p.m. Oct. 18 near Indian Trail and Timberlake roads.
The police officer confiscated the cash, and the city has informed Martinez and his brother, Jose, 34, that Aurora will seek to keep it through civil forfeiture, a procedure that allows police agencies to seize property where the legal standard is lower than proof needed in a criminal forfeiture.
The brothers are home remodelers. Neither has been charged with a crime in this case, and neither has a criminal record, according to Kane County court records.
“I’ve never seen anything like this in 30 years of practice,” said Aurora attorney Patrick Kinnally, who is representing the brothers. A month after the stop, Kinnally filed a complaint arguing that Aurora had no right to keep the money. Eleven days after that, Kinnally and lawyers representing Aurora appeared before Kane County Circuit Judge Michael Colwell.
“Their lawyers basically said the city was going to file for forfeiture,” Kinnally said. “The judge asked on what basis. The lawyer said, ‘We don’t know,’ and the judge said: ‘This is America. Give it back.'”
Yeah, like that will work in Police State America.
#27, wrong wrong wrong, you are part of the reason that the legal system in this country is in the toilet. Making up new laws just because you think someone has done wrong, is not proof of wrong doing.
The burden of proof is not on the defendant, it is on the prosecution. It doesn’t matter if he had half the worth of fort knox in a gym bag, wrapped in dirty underwear, and only makes minimum wage. Unless he is guilty of a crime, the city does not have any right to take it. As far as I know their is no crime for carrying around any a but load of money.
The city should give back the money. He may well be a drug dealer (and by what I read he probably is). Fine, put an investigation on him, and catch him in the act of a real crime. But taking someones personal property because you think, not know, but think someone is doing something illegal is not a country I want to live in.
#12 Well let’s see. First you attack a guy then you turn around and basically agree with his premise: People who feel they have been bleeped are liable to kill you only that does miss the point of 9/11. These guys saw themselves as holey warriors and everyone not of the faith as worthy of death. They weren’t overly concerned about killing Muslims either.
The brothers, or their clients, most likely were trying to avoid the tax man but does that make it legal to rob them? In this police state the answer may be yes.
Given that the average family in the USA has a net worth of less than $25,000 (including all assets), anyone carrying that kind of money must be up to no good. So he is guilty unless he can prove otherwise, and he will NOT be given the chance to prove otherwise, because having money and being brown or black in the USA is an automatic admission of guilt.
Actually, I am surprised that the cops turned the money at all, the corrupt aholes.
Sadly, a significant fraction of many police budgets for things like vehicles and overtime are funded with seized cash and property. Thus, there is a potent incentive to justify the redistibution of wealth by forfeiture.
The numbers make good press releases as in $xxx,xxx.xx dollars were seized from suspected criminals. The return of the money when criminal activity can’t be proven just doesn’t have the same newsiness.
When did carrying cash become illegal? How much cash is enough to trigger suspicion?
Welcome to Barack Obama’s America. Hope and Change!
The problem with cash is that the banks (and Mastercard) don’t get a cut when you use it. So these companies lose money every time you use cash. So really, cash is a form of economic terrorism and should be outlawed completely.
Why aren’t these “officials” named?
#15–Chris==good post, thanks:
# 21 chris said, on December 9th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
#15
Unless you cross a border without announcing cash in excess of reporting requirements you can carry as much as you want. /// Atill the rule: you can carry as much cash as you want, nothing illegal about it. If the police come across chunks of cash in their normal duties, you merely have to explain how you came by it. New immigrant to this country? Sure they carry cash and many don’t trust banks. $190,000? Pull my finger.
It isn’t a crime, and the police ought not have anything to do with it. // Correct. This is a CIVIL forfeiture. Sorry, but words make a difference. Difference between murder and killing. Difference between civil forfeiture and criminal forfeiture. Difference between prosecuting the person, and prosecuting the chunk of cash. I support the police exercising common sense in pursuit of the truth. Who wouldn’t?—criminals and stooges who can’t think past simple dogmatic statements.
While burden of proof for seizure is much lower than a criminal conviction, but that burden still rests with the state. /// For the Feds yes. States evidently vary according to the linked wiki site.
If these guys aren’t suspects in some criminal activity they only need to plausibly explain the source and use of the money. /// WRONG. AND HERE WE SEE YOUR CONFUSION, and hopefully the confusion of the rest of the nay saying gang. No difference in whether the guys are suspects in criminal activity or not. You got a pile of cash: the cash should be grabbed and held until an explanation is made. The investigation is as to the SOURCE of the money ONLY, not the intended USE of the money. Two different issues. If I sell my house for cash and put it in a bag to carry around that is legal no matter what I intend to do with that cash. And I should be required to explain how I got that cash if stopped by police AND I have no requirement to explain what I’m going to do with it.
They would have to sign for it, and doing so could cause a tax investigation down the line. // Tax evasion is a worthy crime often involving chunks of cash. Evidence and truth should be followed where it goes.
I don’t think the police have any business questioning money in absence of some other indication of illegality. /// Why? Common sense says chunks of cash are more likely than not pursuant to some illegal activity. COMMON SENSE. To the degree there is ANY MORAL OUTRAGE about this common sense position, there must of necessity be an excellent reason why the chunk of cash is present. Simple really.
Yes, bobbo, I would unreservedly support the privacy of someone carrying large amounts of cash. /// How about having bombs or severed heads? Covered in Blood??? When you deny common sense and the truth, you take a silly position.
All you nay sayers assume in the abstract some legitimate reason for having chunks of cash, but in reality, such occasions are very rare and in those rare circumstances, an explanation requiring the return of the cash is readily available.
Silly Hoomans.
#30–ArianneB==that sounds like a most excellent project. There are much better examples of forfeiture laws being used inappropriately. My facts are muddled, but a few years ago in Malibu some political activist got his house raided for claimed marijuana growing and the house and cash was taken. MJ never found, officials started using the house as party central and the owner could not afford the lawyers to get his house back. I don’t support that, don’t know the “final” resolve on that one.
I also don’t support the taking of cars in drunk/drug busts. Those items are removed enough from the central crime as to be free from such taking, IMO.
Anyone know of a link to articles such as Ariannes? Lots of “Year in review” but not a one case per Amendment. I like it.
Welcome to George W. Bush’s legacy.
Dopey and Cheney
[Brought to you by the Irrelevance Anti-Matter Foundation]
Typical libtard still blaming Bush, when does it become Obama’s fault?
#39 – What amount of cash is the illegal amount in America?
Anon==any amount that is the proceeds from illegal activity. Therefore, any and all amounts. Or: one cent or more.
Silly Child.
#43 I get all your points Bobbo. And certainly if the brothers could not account for the cash, they should have had it seized.
But that’s not the point of the article. The point is that it was proved that the cash was legally obtained and the county STILL won’t hand it back. Despite a judge ordering them to do so.
THAT’S the point of the story. Not whether it should have been taken or not.
#44–Leather==I chose not to discuss the merits of this case “qua this case” as that is fact dependent which no one here ever does as it is actually rather tedious. To that end, I won’t quibble with your rendition of the case other than to say you have the the key issue wrong.
No, my posting has been to the issue of civil forfeiture as a concept in law. Should it exist at all? I say yes, others have said no.
You say nothing.
I think people like you should disappear.
you’re a total moron aren’t you? This is a gross injustice! just because the mob like city workers and gestapo cops want some fucking “kick backs”? why the fuck should cops have the right to deal with people financial affairs, when its a total legal matter. go through off a cliff do us all a favor.
throw*
well shit.
Yeah replied to the wrong comment I agree with you completely.
I think the editor is loosing control of his emotions right there. I should let badgers lose on him for that.
BTW $200 grand in a car? Is the home remodeling business doing that well or are they conducting bidness on the side? Maybe the officials know this and can’t prove it.
they could have been saving it. why does everyone’s money have to be in a bank? it doesn’t. They were probably paid in cash for their work because it was probably just the two working.
Its really no ones business what they had the money for, it shouldn’t have even been taken in the first place. To my knowledge there’s no law on the books dictating how much cash one can carry around. Maybe if the money was in a bag next to a bunch of heroin this would be a different story, but from the look of it there was NO reason to assume the cash was obtained illegally.
This is the problem with America, everyone assumes the worst of each other. Just live and let live and mind your own damn business.
#40 I’m looking specifically for this year stories.
Amendment 1 has to be Wikileaks as a “freedom of the press” story
Amendment 4 has to be the TSA story
Amendment 10 has to be the AZ SB1070 story.
The rest are neither not obvious or too many to choose from. I’m probably going with the never ending GITMO mess for amendment 6
Amendment 3 is a toughy, as it is kind of an archaic amendment but this sad story fits well enough.
#39, also: #9, #15, #18, #40, #43, and #45.
I wasn’t making a prediction how this case will turn out. I just don’t think it is good law. It is evasive in substance, through and through. Since we can’t prove you did something wrong and the money can’t adequately defend itself let’s blame the money. Who did the crime? The money did it!
This is an externality of poor political policy. Victimless crimes are understandably hard to prosecute. So you have to take extra steps, because the ends justify the means. That is exactly the same crap that Bush, with help, pulled regarding unlimited detention and torture.
Example: Who would be eligible for a Jack Bauer style interrogation and a complementary trip to gitmo?
Probably not a perfect sequential list:
non-us person, captured on the battlefield, fighting w/o uniform
us citizen, captured on the battlefield, fighting w/o uniform
(il)legal alien, captured domestically
citizen, captured domestically
end
By using a legal band-aid anyone could be deprived of the Bill of Rights. And that was… okay. It all came out of the problem trying to BS a spectrum of legal shades between war and peace. Create a new legal name for a banned activity and a category of villain not previously encountered. Wow, no rules! Awesome.
This is the same deal, but directed at your stuff. Couldn’t an excessive car, house, jewelery, or investment be seized following the same logic? Losing a receipt or any banking records pertaining to the financing of the asset, would be tantamount to losing the asset itself.
Imagine making a system of it. Many people can’t produce legal proof of ownership for the vast majority of the stuff in their houses, except that it happens to be sitting there. To increase efficiency it could even be contracted out!
This fast and loose view of property in the US is a relatively recent vintage. Its status today doesn’t indicate the ultimate durability of the idea.
As always, one can hope.
#47–ArianneB==looks to me you should just admit there are no Third Amendment Cases?
#48–Chris==too silly.
Bobbo is right.
Cops show up a drug bust and blow it. You still confiscate the $191 large. It isn’t because it is illegal to have $191K on you, it is because you have $191K on you at a botched drug bust.
Funny that most of you would accuse the cops of being bumbling idiots if they didn’t confiscate it in such a scenario.
Like Bobbo said, it is a common sense issue. If they really go it from home remodeling then they can demonstrate that via invoices in the court system. But of course they can’t.
To those that have been brainwashed above…
Cash is legal to carry and just because you have a big scary wad of money does not automatically mean that you are a criminal. I’ve seen little old ladies pay multi $1000s in cash for items in stores.
So do you want to have some state sponsored thug beat her over the head and steal her money? (which has happened to people in the news mostly at traffic stops. They were completely innocent but never got their money back.) Or how about people calling the cops because some old man tries to pay for something at Best Buy with $2 bills, and the employees are too stupid to realize that $2 bills are legal tender. Or how would you like the government and banks to seize your house out of the blue and tell you that you have to present legal standard of proof? Then when you present your mortgage, deed or tax records – they say it is not good enough or fraudulent – and then take your house regardless of the burden of proof… Oh wait… that is already happening as well. Where is the common sense in these examples?
Link to house stealing activity:
http://www.foreclosurelawfirms.com/resources/foreclosure/loan-modification/banks-stealing-homes.htm
“…When Jason Grodensky bought his modest Fort Lauderdale home in December, he paid cash. But seven months later, he was surprised to learn that Bank of America had foreclosed on the house, even though Grodensky did not have a mortgage.”
I guess that the VISA ‘Cash is Evil’ propaganda campaign worked on a lot of people. Remember that whole innocent until proven guilty concept? Oh wait… we lost that already too… Now it is “you’re guilty.. no judge no jury… oh and thanks for letting me steal everything from you.”
I guess we’re all just SOL then. The system is broken.
hmeyer, this guilty until proven innocent bullshit has to stop.
The burden of proof lies with the government, not with the individual. There’s a shit load of really good reasons for this.