The entire premise of the article is mistaken. This is not a criminal case; it is a case of civil asset forfeiture pursuant to 21 USC s. 881(a)(6). Such things are not considered "property" in this country: the statute says that there can be no rights with respect to them (like the right to exclude others), and that no one can claim title to them. Such things may be seized pursuant to 18 USC s. 981(b)(2)(B), for which the standard is whether there exists "probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture and . . . the seizure is made pursuant to a lawful arrest or search; or ... another exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement would apply." The standard of probable cause was certainly met here, and there is no indication that the search was unlawful (they had CONSENT to search the car).This isn't a criminal proceeding. Gonzolez is not being charged with anything; he isn't going to prison. All that has happened is that he doesn't get to keep the cash. Why? Because the feds caught him with it and have pretty strong reasons for believing that it is drug money, even if they can't prove that Gonzolez has committed any drug offense. This is not an unreasonable or unreasoned decision on the part of the Eighth Circuit.
yeah, those crazy republicans that don't want people crossing state lines with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in their car they didn't rent, in an ice chest. Having that much cash is probable cause to use a drug dog. Police take a few hundred dollars if a dog alerts on it.
The 8th Circuit is not bound by the 11th Circuit. I agree that the 8th Circuit ruling is scary and violative of our rights, but stop talking about 11th Circuit precedent--its merely persuasive authority.