More than $21,000 in cash was confiscated as possible drug money during a routine traffic stop Monday.
Jose Nunez, 21, of Oak Grove, Mo. had just pulled onto the Kansas Turnpike from the Emporia exit when Lyon County Sheriff’s Deputy Cory Doudican pulled him over for failing to signal a lane change. During the stop, Doudican patted down Nunez and his passenger, 43-year-old Raul Ruiz of Richmond, Mo., and found several large bundles that contained $21,417 in cash.
Doudican spread the money on the ground and let his police dog sniff at it. The dog reacted.
“Since the dog hit on it, it’s reasonable to believe there was a drug transaction involved somewhere,” Sheriff Gary Eichorn said. “If the cash has been in the immediate proximity of drugs, the dog’s going to hit on them.”
The sheriff’s department seized the money from the two men.
“It’ll go through the process of going through the court,” Eichorn said. “They have the right to come back and explain why they had it and how they got it.”
Neither man was arrested. No charges have been filed in the incident.
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
Wow...I'm almost speechless. I mean considering that it's been estimated that four out of five U.S. bills have been contaminated with drugs I'm wondering if the cash in the arresting officers billfolds would have passed the same test. Stealing from each other is no way to enforce the law. One would think Officers Of The Law would know better.
December 4, 2006 at 4:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TaterSalad (anonymous) says...
Uh?
How many people carry that kind of cash on their person? Sure there could be a legit reason, but what kind of cops would they be if they didn't at least look into it?
December 4, 2006 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
Cory is a great sheriffs deputy and Lyon County is lucky to have him and the dogs.
December 4, 2006 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
Balderdash! Theft is theft and a thief is a thief. MrC stands firmly behind His original statement.
December 5, 2006 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
Lucky for society MrC's statements mean nothing. The two gentlemen will have their day in court to prove the money came from legitimate enterprises, if they can do so, the money will be returned. That is not theft in any sense of the word.
Pretty sure most of society would be able to document where and how they came into possession of over $21,000. Of course most drug smugglers, dealers, and transporters are unable to do so.
December 5, 2006 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
Sure...all they have to do is hire a lawyer...that costs money...it's theft in every sense of the word.
December 5, 2006 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
Actually they could represent themselves in this process. All they need to do is walk in with some sort of proof that it came from a legitimate source. No need for an attorney, just a pay stub, bank statement, casino payout check, etc. The ways they could prove this are endless. But I would bet the farm, they fail to even show up. That is what happens in the majority of these cases. They forfeit the money, knowing it came from drug sales. So we are back to it not being theft, unless of course you have some other wild theory to make it so.
December 5, 2006 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
Oh EB...MrCmonkeeDo has lots o wild theories about this case an' a few questions too.
First, MrC is always suspicious when He hears that someone was pulled over for failing to signal a lane change.
Second, He wonders if White folks ever get patted down because they failed to signal a lane change.
Third, He wonders How much money is magically too much to carry on one's person and if that "magic" number goes up or down depending on the color of one's skin or their destination or point of origin and Fourth, when does it become Sheriff business?
Fifth, MrC K.N.O.W.s that Sheriff Eichorn and Deputy Sheriff Doudican are not S.T.U.P.I.D. and suspects THEY know the statistics for drug tainted money and the odds of a positive reaction from the dogs.
Sixth, MrC wonders if the dogs mentioned the kind of drugs THEY smelled, that could be of import in a case like this.
Seventh, One would assume the vehicle had no odor of drugs since it was not likewise seized. That's gotta be pretty unusual: no odor of drugs in a drug couriers vehicle; not even a doob for the long ride home? Come on now.
Eighth, an' this is the one MrC really wants to know: what if--by some miracle or fluke--the dogs had not reacted to the cash? Would those two desperados been free to leave with all that cash? I mean knowing what we do about the "kind of people" who carry that much cash?
Ninth, if the cash is ligit an' the suspected return to claim it, do we pay their expenses and any monies they may have lost as a result of OUR seizure of their cash?
Tenth, there's not a nickle's difference between seizing someone's property and stealing it. HeckFire a fool knows that.
December 6, 2006 at 3:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tknaak (inactive user) says...
I did find a site written buy a law enforcement officer and K9 handler that has some insight on your dog sniffing cash debate. Please enjoy.
http://www.k9fleck.org/nlu09.htm
The cash needs a strong contamination for a dog to smell it in the first place. I assume there is going to be some forensics tests done to the bills to determine if there is any drug residue on the bills.
It is dang near impossible to find any USEFUL and reliable information on the internet showing the con side of K9 cash sniffs (all money being tainted etc.) so if anyone finds a good link, please post it.
I see alot of the hispanic guys in duos traveling on I-35, they drive up north, buy 2 - 3 cars, drive them south and resell them. If they were doing that, then that would warrant $21,000 in cash. If they are individuals that do it, are they really going to have documentation? Doubt it. Are they out $21,000, you bet.
December 6, 2006 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tknaak (inactive user) says...
Also, I understand they were on the Turnpike, not I-35, but I was relating to what I see on I-35 to this situation.
December 6, 2006 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
tKnaak-Good point. But even if the men are driving back and forth to purchase/sell vehicles, they will still be able to show where they got the $21,000 from. Whether it be a bank loan, from their own savings, or paychecks, they will have proof of the origins of the money. Again if they are legit, or in MrC's case ligit, operation they will have little difficulty in getting their money back. But my feeling is they won't show, because they know, much like anyone else with an ounce of common sense, that this money came from drug sales.
December 6, 2006 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
MrC gave up on the argument of "they have to hire an attorney to get it back, so it is theft" rather quickly. Don't blame him for that one, it was a foolish statement and shined a light on the fact he knows little about the criminal justice system. But, alas, we will look at his 2nd round of reasoning.
You’re suspicious when someone is pulled over for failure to signal a lane change? You realize that's like saying you are suspicious when someone is pulled over for failure to obey the traffic laws? While it may be a precursor to search for drugs, weapons or other felony related paraphernalia, both the KS Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court have given it the thumbs up, so long as the officer can clearly state his reasoning for the stop.
Second, you wonder if white people have ever been patted down by police after breaking a traffic law. Yes, I am sure that at some point in this country's history this has happened. Generally broad questions will get you generally broad and rather redundant answers.
Third, there is no magic number of money which is too much to carry. However, the officer looks at the totality of the circumstances and makes a call based on that. If the person had $21 on him and the dog hit on it. Probably going to let him walk on that. $21,000 is going to be a different story. It’s called officer discretion, which is gained and learned from years of training and experience.
Fourth, it becomes the Sheriff’s business when they break a traffic law in front of the big SUV marked “LYON COUNTY SHERRIFS OFFICE K-9 UNIT”.
Fifth, agreed they are not stupid.
December 6, 2006 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
Sixth, Scooby Do would have been able to. Sorry, but stupid questions get stupid answers.
Seventh, maybe they use one vehicle to transport the drugs and another to transport the money. Not too far fetched since most drug courier vehicles are modified in some way to hide the drugs, such as hollowing out roofs, seats, etc. They probably use separate people to transport the money than they use to transport the drugs as well. Most drug transporters/sellers do not use their own product, and especially when they are in the process of transporting and selling. So it is not surprising there was no "doob" in the car.
Eighth, yes.
Ninth, If the cash is "ligit" then they can come back, show proof and claim it. They could then file suit against Lyon County for a list of things. They wouldn’t even need to pay an attorney up front. Nearly any plaintiff’s attorney would take the case on contingency.
Tenth, there is a massive difference between the two. In a seizure case there is at least a reasonable suspicion that the items being seized are connected to criminal wrongdoing, i.e. a highly trained drug sniffing dog hit on a large sum of money and the individuals in possession of such are unable to state just how they came into possession. Stealing (there is actually no crime of “stealing” in KS) is when someone wrongfully takes what does not belong to them, and does belong to someone else.
December 6, 2006 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
Found this article on dog detectives kind of interesting:
http://www.leerburg.com/mistakes.htm
December 6, 2006 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tknaak (inactive user) says...
That is a good read MrCmonkeeDo. Thank you for finding it.
I would like to hear more about the K9 training that our local law enforcement goes through. Who trains them? Where are the dogs from?
I am sure they are great dogs, I just would like to know more about them.
December 6, 2006 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
Well garsh EB...Hyuk, Hyuk...you sure am smart. If that big SUV says "...SHERRIFS OFFICE..." should we scream like a tree and dive to the foRRest floor?
Look Dude...if MrC somehow conveyed that He thought He KNEW much about the criminal justice system He'd apologize. He's just Joe Average with attention deficit. Clearly WE are inferior to YOUR greater intellect and WE bow to your Superegoessness.
But seriously, MrC should have better conveyed earlier that, had an odor of drugs been found in or around the vehicle or on Mr. Nunez or Mr. Ruiz We wouldn't have a problem with the "Seizure" of their "too much" cash. But basing that "seizure" on a test no pile of cash that size is likely to pass has a stench of impropriety about it.
December 6, 2006 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
You're certainly welcome tknaak.
In light of this discussion We found this particular paragraph from that article intriguing:
Handlers can create errors by pulling their dogs away from things they are investigating, by letting them search too long in a single place or by inciting the dog through some gesture, glance or emotion, even unconscious. Trainers say the message "travels right down the leash."
December 6, 2006 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
"Posted by EsqEB
You’re suspicious when someone is pulled over for failure to signal a lane change? You realize that's like saying you are suspicious when someone is pulled over for failure to obey the traffic laws?"
No it isn't.
"While it may be a precursor to search for drugs, weapons or other felony related paraphernalia, both the KS Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court have given it the thumbs up, so long as the officer can clearly state his reasoning for the stop."
Strange...that's exactly what makes MrC suspicious. Perhaps you should read that again and consider the intent of the courts.
"Second, you wonder if white people have ever been patted down by police after breaking a traffic law."
No MrC wonders if white folks ever get patted down because they failed to signal a lane change.
"Yes, I am sure that at some point in this country's history this has happened. Generally broad questions will get you generally broad and rather redundant answers."
Say it ten times real fast...then it will be a redundant tongue twister.
"Third, there is no magic number of money which is too much to carry. However, the officer looks at the totality of the circumstances and makes a call based on that. If the person had $21 on him and the dog hit on it. Probably going to let him walk on that. $21,000 is going to be a different story. It’s called officer discretion, which is gained and learned from years of training and experience."
And apparently the size of the pile of cash, eh EB? (wink)
"Fourth, it becomes the Sheriff’s business when they break a traffic law in front of the big SUV marked “LYON COUNTY SHERRIFS OFFICE K-9 UNIT”."
Really? The cash in our pockets is the sheriff's business when we commit a minor traffic offense? I did not know that EB.
"Fifth, agreed they are not stupid."
EB! Don't you realize agreeing with MrC on his fifth point is like saying you too suspect THEY know the statistics for drug tainted money and the odds of a positive reaction from the dogs?
December 7, 2006 at 4:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
"Sixth, Scooby Do would have been able to. Sorry, but stupid questions get stupid answers."
Good one EB! HA!HA!
"Seventh, maybe they use one vehicle to transport the drugs and another to transport the money. Not too far fetched since most drug courier vehicles are modified in some way to hide the drugs, such as hollowing out roofs, seats, etc. They probably use separate people to transport the money than they use to transport the drugs as well. Most drug transporters/sellers do not use their own product, and especially when they are in the process of transporting and selling. So it is not surprising there was no "doob" in the car."
Now that's true. MrC and i saw it in an episode of T.J. Hooker.
"Eighth, yes."
Yeah well what can ya do at that point; besides kick Hell out of that dog.
"Ninth, If the cash is "ligit" then they can come back, show proof and claim it. They could then file suit against Lyon County for a list of things. They wouldn’t even need to pay an attorney up front. Nearly any plaintiff’s attorney would take the case on contingency."
Gee, that certainly sounds simple. Do ya reckon they'd act put-out at all?
"Tenth, there is a massive difference between the two. In a seizure case there is at least a reasonable suspicion that the items being seized are connected to criminal wrongdoing, i.e. a highly trained drug sniffing dog hit on a large sum of money and the individuals in possession of such are unable to state just how they came into possession. Stealing (there is actually no crime of “stealing” in KS) is when someone wrongfully takes what does not belong to them, and does belong to someone else."
Typical LawyerSpeak. Let's ask Jose Nunez and Raul Ruiz if they see the difference.
December 7, 2006 at 4:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JD_number_07 (anonymous) says...
It is quite obvious to me what has happened here. Between 2001 and 2005, the city has moved a lot of money out of the drug forfeiture fund to other funds. State law says this has to be used on law enforcement and not general expenses. Since the city has looted the police department, they are just trying to make up the difference.
December 7, 2006 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporia123 (anonymous) says...
It seems like everyday I drive on 1-35 and see the sheriff's department has a family stopped and the drug dog is going through the car. I wonder how people are detained for hours on end to find nothing.
It also seems odd that the Sheriff is patrolling the highway. Shouldn't the Highway Patrol worry about the highway and the Sheriff worry about the county roads. Crime is on the rise in the county and yet they are worrying about the highway.
December 8, 2006 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
"It seems like everyday I drive on 1-35 and see the sheriff's department has a family stopped and the drug dog is going through the car. I wonder how people are detained for hours on end to find nothing."
We see it too and noticed long ago that it's usually (at least nine out of ten times) hispanics suffering this humiliation.
December 9, 2006 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporia123 (anonymous) says...
I have also noticed that it seems like it always hispanics that are getting searched.
I am curious if there is a record of who was stoped, race, and when a drug dog is used?
December 12, 2006 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cepperly (anonymous) says...
It sounds like a very interesting forum you have going on. If I may, I would like to educate some of you on our activities on I35. I am the KHP's K9 Unit here in Emporia and work I35 extensively for drugs and proceeds. First, let me assure you that if anybody is scrutinized in court by defense attornies, it is Cory and I. There is millions of dollars funding the cartels and funding the term racial profiling. If anybody would like to inquire further about this topic, please email me at cepperly@khp.ks.gov and I would like to invite you to a K9 demonstration or ride along, so you can see for yourself our activities. I will not respond to any nameless inquiry, as it holds no credibility with me. I am not going to let people speculate as to the crime fighting here in Emporia and bash law enforcement's name without good cause. So please, email me with your questions or concerns, and I will try and answer or explain it to the best of my ability.
Clint Epperly
December 13, 2006 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
Here are some things every American should know about "racial profiling."
http://www.amnestyusa.org/racial_prof...
http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/rac...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_p...
http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.ne...
And "search and seizure" laws.
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/1/...
E/catId/268BB6A8-8884-4677-89869B6AD8A75ADA/104/143/127/ART/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/co...
And even groundless cash seizures!
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id...
December 21, 2006 at 5:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
Sorry the first link under "And "search and seizure" laws." doesn't work. This link should:
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objec...
December 21, 2006 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
THIS IS A MUST READ!
http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr...
December 24, 2006 at 3:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Clint, Since you are asking for a name in order to proceed, I doubt you'll get any takers on your offer. That's really too bad because perhaps if they do participate in a ride-along, people will learn a few things and have a greater understanding of the work deputies do. So many people are willing to take cheap shots at law enforcement, especially when it comes to drugs. I can only guess why that is.
You are doing an excellent job, particularly with regard to the number of good drug arrests you and your colleagues have made out on the I-35 "drug corridor." I for one have great respect for your diligence. It's a thankless job -- damned if you do and damned if you don't.
EsqEB: I appreciated your arguments, they were erudite and articulate.
December 13, 2007 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UsayULoveGod (anonymous) says...
I was coming from Wichita last year and there was a Mexcian driving a Escalade and he went through the turnpike going to KC and guest what , he was pulled over and his car was serached and he did not do anything other than Drive a Nice car and have Texas tags and be Mexican . I was driving in the lane next to him. Reality is that we will never stop drugs until we decrease the demand !
December 13, 2007 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gr8ggogli (anonymous) says...
Posted by MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous)
{Posted by EsqEB
"You’re suspicious when someone is pulled over for failure to signal a lane change? You realize that's like saying you are suspicious when someone is pulled over for failure to obey the traffic laws?"
No it isn't.}
Yes it is. You must signal before changing lanes. That's a traffic law. If you don't signal, you disobey a traffic law.
Let me guess, MrC; you think turn signals are optional like a lot of folks around here. Not so.
December 13, 2007 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
"You must signal before changing lanes. That's a traffic law. If you don't signal, you disobey a traffic law."
You're right, it is a traffic law, but few of US are ever pulled over for it.
Heck-fire there's probably not a driver alive that hasn't broken that law. MrC has even witnessed police officers not signaling before making lane changes. It's considered a minor infraction, which is perhaps why it is so low priority on the minds of drivers and officers alike.
That being said, if MrC changed lanes without signaling, in front of a patrol car he'd expect to be pulled over and ticketed. However, He'd be very surprised and offended if the officer decided to pat Him down.
December 13, 2007 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slipandslide (anonymous) says...
usay, they are decreasing the supply, thats half of the supply and demand thing.they do a good job, maybe druggies will learn that they cant drive past emporia without standing the chance of going to prison.when there is less supply, the demand has to go down or maybe the demand for something else will go up in exchange for whats being siezed
December 13, 2007 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gr8ggogli (anonymous) says...
MrC
I have also seen lots of people break that law. I've seen people pulled over for it and many many more that were not. The law exists for good reason. People who don't bother to use their signals are not only inconsiderate of the other drivers on the road, they're also breaking the law. Have you had a semi change lanes on ya, without signaling? It's not nice. And it's illegal. Get it?
The fact remains that it is a law and to violate it is a traffic infraction. The number of people who ignore the law is not the issue.
The stupidity of someone traveling with cargo that they wouldn't want to be caught with, doing ANYTHING that would attract the attention of authorities is something else.
The cops are doing a good job. The dogs are doing a great job too.
December 13, 2007 at 7:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
MrC, I am white, I have been pulled over many times for traffic violations, was patted down numerous times(it's called Officer Safety), had nothing illegal on my person or in my car, have never had $21,000 cash in my possession, I was not wanted on warrants, had current registration, insurance and licensing, cooperated and did what was asked of me, and was given either warnings or citations and sent on my way. No I don't drive a Mercedes or a $50k truck, maybe I should have whined that I was racially profiled as poor white trash? Ever watch Cops on Saturday nights? Stupidity and criminal tendencies/mentality know no racial boundaries.
If you act like a duck, quack like a duck, walk like a duck, shed water like a duck, have feathers like a duck, have a bill like a duck, then you most likely are a duck and should be suspected to be a duck.
I'd be willing to bet that these two drug mules in the story didn't even use their real names. They are probably already back in Mexico trying to disappear from US law enforcement and from the drug cartel that is out $21 large.
December 13, 2007 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...
neighbor,
You must be a real menace on the road. Yikes!
December 13, 2007 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
MrC, I didn't say I was pulled over recently. I haven't been pulled over in over 20 years because I was smart enough to learn from my mistakes. Who is profiling who now?
December 14, 2007 at 12:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )