posted on December 3, 2000 06:29:37 PM
Xardon: I was leaning towards a Dateline/ 20/20 /whatever show as well.
I would have to disagree that money has not been confiscated solely on the basis of drug residue. I believe that was the whole point of the show I saw. The case I am thinking of (and I know I'm on weak ground with out a link) was that of an older fellow on a Florida highway who was (according to he and his family) on his way to buy a tractor with cash. He was pulled over and a police dog searched the truck and 'hit' on the money (several thousand dollars). There was no other indication of drugs, but the guys money was taken. He did get a lawyer and did get the money back, but by the time he paid the lawyer most of the money was gone.
posted on December 3, 2000 06:58:12 PM
Yeah, I believe that could happen in Florida. They're pretty tough across the board on all sorts of laws. Their idea of law and order is a bit extreme.
The major problem with those forfeiture laws is that there is a presumption of guilt. Unlike most laws it is not the responsibility of the seizing agency to prove the money was ill-gotten. They need only suggest that it is possible the money came from criminal sources. The burden of proof falls on the person from whom the money/property was seized.
People are all too willing to give up their constitutional rights when convinced the sacrifice will contribute to "public safety".
posted on December 3, 2000 07:22:28 PM
Xardon: I agree. Ideas that look good on paper don't always pan out when used in the real world.
I was interested in the money thing because where I live (New Mexico) I have to pass through a boarder check point on 2 of the three ways out of the state. Both use dogs for searches and I've always wondered if they have 'hit' on 'drug money' that some poor fool picked up at the 7-11.
If you, or anyone else, runs across any info about the money thing, please post it.
posted on December 4, 2000 09:01:41 AMOf course they offered no source for that. Hmmm...
The evidence of forensic toxicologist Jay B. Williams was that up to 75 percent of U.S. currency is coated with traces of controlled substances. Williams has run tests on currency since 1982, examining $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 bills from such places as banks, department stores, and restaurants in the western U.S. In Los Angeles and Las Vegas, he found that 75 percent of currency has traces of illegal drugs, while in Bozeman, Montana even 10 to 15 percent of currency is contaminated. In his affidavit to the court, Williams testified that other studies have found that because some illegal drugs are "sticky," these substances cling to bills and are transferred to other bills in cash registers and wallets.
