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.
#15
Unless you cross a border without announcing cash in excess of reporting requirements you can carry as much as you want.
It isn’t a crime, and the police ought not have anything to do with it.
While burden of proof for seizure is much lower than a criminal conviction, but that burden still rests with the state.
If these guys aren’t suspects in some criminal activity they only need to plausibly explain the source and use of the money. They would have to sign for it, and doing so could cause a tax investigation down the line.
I don’t think the police have any business questioning money in absence of some other indication of illegality.
Yes, bobbo, I would unreservedly support the privacy of someone carrying large amounts of cash.
If you read the article, the city no longer has the money because it was subsequently seized from the city by the dept. of Homeland Security. Why? It doesn’t say.
Reminds me of the case earlier this year when the TSA took it upon themselves to seize some cash that a congressional aid was carrying on a domestic flight, and to arrest him for refusing to tell them where he got the money and what it was for. They pretended not to arrest him, but he was not free to leave until law enforcement was through with him.
Come on people. It is as simple as innocent until proven guilty. There’s no law against carrying around a buttload of cash. If the cops suspect these guys of being up to something, the thing to do is to let them go and keep a close watch on them.
What in the hell has happened to America ????
Looks like police have given the signal for justice to be served by the public directly, correct?
Just so we all know.
“What in the hell has happened to America ????”
See post #9, 15, and 18. Bad news.
Thank god we have “reasoning people” who don’t believe in the constitution! It’s just a “Dammed piece of paper” as our hero GWB said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I live 2 suburbs away from Aurora. There are bad parts and good parts but this is news here.
#1. The brother’s phone was tapped as they were suspected drug dealers. The cops listened in about picking up a package in a Home Depot parking lot. They waiting til the brothers were there.
#2. The idiot cops didn’t wait for the drop. They approached the brothers who had at that point did nothing wrong. The police asked to search the car and they consented with $190k in a sack in the trunk.
#3. That’s it. The cops took it and the brothers would like it back. Shame on the cops for not doing the job correctly. The police just can’t take what they feel like. The brothers were never arrested on anything.
#3. A judge told the city to give it back and they haven’t. The judge since retired and now a new judge needs to hear the case. So stupid.
$190,000 carrying around in your truck? You show me how you legitimately earned that money and then they should have to give it back, otherwise forfeit and investigate.
What if it was the equivelent in gold?
It is called a shake down.I think we have turned into the old Soviet Union.
I’m working on a “Year in review in 10 Amendments”.
I think I found my 8th amendment story.
#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.