Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,815 Posts
The court merely substituted its own judgment for that of the district court, and essentially overruled the district court's findings of fact (saying "plausible" is not the same as "credible"). In the 8th Circuit, the government now can seize your money with no admissible evidence (just the "testimony" of a drug dog).
 

·
Sledgehammer
Joined
·
4,815 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
Testimony that I think is "slight" evidence under the relevant precedent for a statute that requires a preponderance of the evidence showing substantial connection to drug activity.

AND - it looks like he flew to Chicago and was driving back to California when stopped in Nebraska. Did he forget to pick up the drugs, or did he fly the drugs to Chicago and was coming back to California with the money?
Very slight evidence indeed. Can you imagine how the cross examination of the government witness (the police officer?) went at the hearing? The officer would not be able to identify the drug involved or the drug activity engaged in.

Or, can you imagine if this were a civil case between two non-governmental parties, and the plaintiff had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's money was substantially connected to drug activities? The case would be thrown out as frivolous if the plaintiff had nothing more than this.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top