Something does not add up in the guy's story. Buying a truck entirely in cash, the drug dog triggering off the cash, the fact that he couldn't prove where the money came from makes everything real shady. No clear cut right decision here, but I don't think they have the evidence to seize the money like that.
acsguitar wrote:Guys people use bills commonly to blow cocaine. I can pretty much guarentee lots of dollar bills have trace amounts of cocaine on them.
its a really poor excuse. Besides do you rub your money with cocaine when you make a deal?
Do you keep the cocaine and the money next to each other. For god sakes the cocaine would have to be out side of the bag and freely touching the money.
Its so stupid its laughable
apparently drug dogs do not alert to trace amounts of cocaine, they alert to a chemical byproduct of cocaine. they would only alert to cash that has been stored near a large amount of cocaine within a short time frame and not cash tainted by an ATM or something like that, assuming the dog and trainer act accurately. incompetence of the dog and trainer is a different issue. the cocaine would not have to be out of the package to taint the money.
josebach wrote:By your rationale, I guess it would never be ok to confiscate money... even if it was an unemployed, repeat drug offender carrying around a million dollars in small bills. I guess you guys would rather that money stay on the street and wind up being responsible for who knows what?
I don't know who's rationale you're talking about, but if it's mine, you're way off. If the guy had a prior history of drug charges, if he had drugs on him, in his system, or in the car, or if the person whose name was on rental car had any drug history, or if they could locate a buyer...if they could link him to drugs with any physical evidence other than the money or if he had a history of involvement with drugs I would have no problem whatsoever with the assumption that the money was somehow involved with drugs.
acsguitar wrote:Guys people use bills commonly to blow cocaine. I can pretty much guarentee lots of dollar bills have trace amounts of cocaine on them.
its a really poor excuse. Besides do you rub your money with cocaine when you make a deal?
Do you keep the cocaine and the money next to each other. For god sakes the cocaine would have to be out side of the bag and freely touching the money.
Its so stupid its laughable
apparently drug dogs do not alert to trace amounts of cocaine, they alert to a chemical byproduct of cocaine. they would only alert to cash that has been stored near a large amount of cocaine within a short time frame and not cash tainted by an ATM or something like that, assuming the dog and trainer act accurately. incompetence of the dog and trainer is a different issue. the cocaine would not have to be out of the package to taint the money.
What is this chemical byproduct that moves through solids?
acsguitar wrote: What is this chemical byproduct that moves through solids?
methyl benzoate. cocaine and other drugs arent necessarily stored in germetically sealed containers. also, the packaging itself would, in the course of being wrapped around the cocaine, become contaminated with the vapor, which could then contaminate the money.
acsguitar wrote: What is this chemical byproduct that moves through solids?
methyl benzoate. cocaine and other drugs arent necessarily stored in germetically sealed containers. also, the packaging itself would, in the course of being wrapped around the cocaine, become contaminated with the vapor, which could then contaminate the money.
But money from an ATM couldn't provide this same contamination?
acsguitar wrote: But money from an ATM couldn't provide this same contamination?
according to the few studies i've read, very highly unlikely circulated currency would alert a drug dog. first, the identifiable odor reportedly doesnt last very long, although i havent yet come upon a time frame yet. repeated handling and exposure to open air is effective at removing the odor. second, the casual use of cocaine wouldnt provide sufficient contamination. contamination occurs only from 'large' (large wasnt defined) amounts of cocaine. further, the drug dogs are routinely tested with control money (money from ATM, out of people's wallets, etc.) and do not alert to it.
acsguitar wrote: But money from an ATM couldn't provide this same contamination?
according to the few studies i've read, very highly unlikely circulated currency would alert a drug dog. first, the identifiable odor reportedly doesnt last very long, although i havent yet come upon a time frame yet. repeated handling and exposure to open air is effective at removing the odor. second, the casual use of cocaine wouldnt provide sufficient contamination. contamination occurs only from 'large' (large wasnt defined) amounts of cocaine. further, the drug dogs are routinely tested with control money (money from ATM, out of people's wallets, etc.) and do not alert to it.
acsguitar wrote: interesting you know all matrix person
i was bored at work and a little curious so i have been looking it up off and on all day today. in the 1990's it seems the ATM contaminated excuse mostly held up, but in the 2000's there are several studies showing otherwise.
acsguitar wrote: interesting you know all matrix person
i was bored at work and a little curious so i have been looking it up off and on all day today. in the 1990's it seems the ATM contaminated excuse mostly held up, but in the 2000's there are several studies showing otherwise.
Still if you had 135,000 in cash and you said no its not drug money but yes I have been blowing ya for the last 3 days I don't see how thats a crime.
I can tell a cop that last week i was high on crack and he can't do anything
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by CubsFan7724 » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:40 pm 
