|
Let's all remember that this decision is appealable and the Circuit Court of Appeals doesn't necessarily have the final say in the matter.
Having read the entire decision (thanks for that dk), I'm inclined more towards the government than I was after reading the internet article. Basically, the appeals court said that they don't believe the plaintiff and that his story doesn't make sense. They also point out that their disbelief is the difference between their opinion and that of the lower court. Apparently Mr. Gonzolez never produced the guy who told him that it was bad to fly with more than $10,000 cash, the guy that rented him the car, the guy who he was going to buy the truck from, or the guy who was going to help him buy the truck (interestingly enough he couldn't remember this "friend's" name). The verdict sums it up nicely with "This testimony does not inspire confidence in the innocence of the conduct." (page 7) They basically said that his story was plausible but unlikely. If you read the entire decision, you might end up with a different opinion than what the reporter would have you think initially.
Oh yeah, they also remanded it for further proceedings, meaning that they want more information and testimony from everyone involved, including Mr. Gonzolez.
And will, I don't think the cops did anything wrong here at all. The prosecutors may have (should Mr. Gonzolez prove his case), but I don't see how the cops could be blamed at all since their job ended once he was in custody.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|