Whose money is it?

[Wolverine@MSU]

Here's one for ya: In a recent decision, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that money that was siezed through an illegal search does not have to be returned to the defendant! The gist of the case is as follows:

Five years ago, State Police made a routine trfiic stop (for speeding) on I-94 in the western part of the state (an area known as a drug traffic hotspot). A woman was driving the car, with her boyfriend (a known, or suspected drug dealer) as a passenger. During an illegal search, the officers discovered $180,000 in a backpack in the trunk and confiscated it. The prosecutor claimed that since neither of the two had well paying jobs, and that they said the money was left from the previous person who rented the car, that the money was theirs and must have been intended to be used to buy drugs, and therefore the state could keep the money, even though it couldn't be admitted as evidence. Lower courts disagreed, but were overruled by the Supreme Court.

So since when has it been illegal to posess money, and since when do you have to explain where the money came from and what it will be used for. I admit that in all likelihood, the money was to be used for exactly what the prosecutor claimed, but I never thought that just having a lot of cash was a crime.

The ruling just came down last week, so I haven't had a chance to research the exact details or read the court opinions, but I'm a little uneasy with the idea that your property can be seized because you can't prove that it wasn't inteded to be used in the commission of a crime.

[Hawk]

Anyone that has $10,000 cash or more is automatically suspected of drug trafficking or terrorism.
It's a federal law that anyone who tries to spend $10,000 cash or more must be reported to the feds by the business that it is being spent at. I suspect the same would be true for checks.
I do agree though that if a person isn't proven to be using the money for illegal activities the government shouldn't be allowed to keep it, but then-how else are they going to pad their pockets.
Most local and state governments keep all confiscated items, even if a crime or criminal intent was never proven. They sell the stuff and pad their pockets.

[Eb Zane]

and pad their pockets

Some judges retire earlier than others.

Eb

[acorn_farmer_84]

well, there is no way the supreme court should be able to do that in my book,
all i can say is 'only in America'.

[EPH]

The 'War on Drugs' was lost in the 60's. The only people who gain anything from it are the law enforcement agencies who get to seize and keep property. By the way, if someone in your household has drugs and/or paraphernalia (like glowsticks, in Louisiana) you may have your property seized. You might get it back, if you can afford the legal fees.

Legalize, license and tax drugs - like alcohol, or cigarettes - spring the minor drug offenders from prison (cutting prison costs by half) and get the government out of the average citizen's life and pocket.

[Hawk]

The 'War on Drugs' was lost in the 60's. The only people who gain anything from it are the law enforcement agencies who get to seize and keep property.

So true!