Art Vandelay wrote:I posted a link on page two of this thread that shows quotes taken from cases with similar circumstances in which it was found that trace amounts of drugs on money was not evidence of drug posession by the posessor of the money. It seems like those would set precedent.
1) the court ruled the entirety of the situation--the sum of money, implausible cover story, drug tainted money, etc.--was sufficient, not simply that the money was tainted.
2) the importance of those cases cant really be ascertained without further analysis. for one, they deal with the presumption of cocaine tainted money fooling drug sniffing dogs. See United States v. $30,670 in U.S. Funds, 403 F.3d 48 (2nd Cir. 2005) (scientific evidence establishes that dogs do not alert to the smell of cocaine but only to the smell of methyl benzoate, a volatile by-product; thus, dogs to not alert to innocently tainted currency in general circulation but only to currency that “has
been exposed to large amounts of illicit cocaine within the very recent past”; accordingly, “a properly trained dog’s alert to currency should be entitled to probative weight”; older cases depreciating value of the dog alert are unpersuasive); United States v. $22,474 in U.S. Currency, 246 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir.
2001) (because a properly trained drug dog alerts to the presence of methyl benzoate, a chemical by-product that evaporates quickly when exposed to the air, and does not alert to the cocaine itself, a dog alert means the currency has been in recent proximity to cocaine); United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438 (2nd Cir. 2004) (in Second Circuit, a dog sniff is probative evidence of the nexus to drug
trafficking as long as it is supported by other evidence).