United States v. $17,900.00 in U.S. Currency

859 F.3d 1085

UNITED STATES of America, c/o United States Attorney's Office, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.SEVENTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($17,900.00) IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant

Joyce Copeland and Angela Rodriquez, Claimants-Appellants

No. 16-5284

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 9, 2017

Decided June 20, 2017

Christa Laser argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants. Christopher Landau, Washington, DC, entered an appearance.

Christopher B. Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for appellee United States of America. With him on the brief were Elizabeth Trosman and Chrisellen R. Kolb, Assistant U.S. Attorneys. R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance.

Before: Rogers, Tatel and Pillard, Circuit Judges.

Tatel, Circuit Judge:

This is a civil-forfeiture case, which is why the plaintiff is the United States of America and the defendant is a pile of cash. The government claims that the cash is subject to forfeiture because it is connected to the "exchange [of] a controlled substance," i.e. , drug trafficking. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). Appellants, themselves flesh and blood, have intervened in this action, offering sworn testimony that the money is theirs and wholly unrelated to drugs. According to the government, that testimony is so implausible that appellants lack Article III standing to intervene. The district court, deciding the issue on summary judgment, agreed. We reverse. At summary judgment, claimants alleging an ownership interest need only make an assertion of ownership and provide some evidence of ownership to establish standing. Because "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge," Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), we conclude that appellants met their burden.

I.

The practice of civil forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property and then seek permanent forfeiture in a civil proceeding in rem —meaning, in a proceeding against the property—all without so much as charging the owner with a criminal offense. Leonard v. Texas , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 847, 847, 197 L.Ed.2d 474 (2017) (Thomas, J.) (statement respecting the denial of certiorari). Though rooted in an English Law tradition that operated "under the fiction that the thing itself, rather than the owner, was guilty of the crime," contemporary civil forfeiture in the federal system is a creature of statute, the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 849 (citing Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. , 416 U.S. 663, 684–85, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 40 L.Ed.2d 452 (1974) ); see United States v. $133,420 , 672 F.3d 629, 634 (9th Cir. 2012).

The typical forfeiture action begins when the government files a verified complaint against the property specifying, among other things, "the statute under which the forfeiture action is brought" and "sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial." Supplemental Rule G(2). As plaintiff, the government bears the ultimate "burden of proof ... to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture." 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1).

Although the initial parties to the proceeding are the government and the property, "[a] person who asserts an interest in the defendant property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the action is pending." Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i). A claim, in turn, must identify the property and claimant, state the claimant's interest in the property, and be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury. Id.

"Unlike in typical civil proceedings, the government may commence limited discovery immediately after a verified claim is filed." $133,420 , 672 F.3d at 635. Under Supplemental Rule G(6)(a), "[t]he government may serve special interrogatories limited to the claimant's identity and relationship to the defendant property without the court's leave at any time after the claim is filed and before discovery is closed." These same rules provide that the "government may move to strike a claim ... because the claimant lacks standing" and that such a motion "may be presented as a motion for judgment on the pleadings or as a motion to determine after a hearing or by summary judgment whether the claimant can carry the burden of establishing standing by a preponderance of the evidence." Supplemental Rule G(8)(c).

This case traces its roots back to March 28, 2014, when an Amtrak passenger mistakenly removed another person's backpack from a train at Washington's Union Station. Later that day, he opened the backpack to find a shopping bag containing $17,900 in cash. Commendably, he turned the backpack over to Amtrak police.

In addition to the money, Amtrak police officers found inside the bag a student notebook and other personal effects. One of the papers contained the name Peter Rodriguez, as did the train manifest. A police narcotics dog alerted to the backpack, suggesting the presence of drug residue.

Using a contact number from the manifest, a detective with the Metropolitan Police Department called Peter Rodriguez, who gave a detailed description of the contents of the backpack—except for the money. Twice asked whether there was money in the backpack, Peter said no. Later, the detective called Peter to inform him that currency was found in the backpack, and that the bag—sans cash—could be recovered from Amtrak, though the money would remain with the MPD Asset Forfeiture Unit.

Shortly thereafter, appellant Angela Rodriguez, Peter's mother, contacted MPD, explaining, according to the government's verified complaint, that the cash belonged to her and her domestic partner, appellant Joyce Copeland, who lives with her in New York City. The couple, she recounted, had left the money in a bag in Peter's apartment, but neglected to tell him that it contained currency. When Peter later announced that he was coming to New York to visit his mother, she told him to bring the bag along.

Unconvinced by Ms. Rodriguez's story, the police formally seized the currency and turned it over to the DEA, which initiated administrative forfeiture proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 983. The couple participated in that process, filing claims of interest and providing some documents to support their claim. Still unmoved, the government commenced this case on March 13, 2015, by filing its complaint seeking forfeiture of the money as drug related. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).

After the couple filed verified claims asserting their ownership interests in the money, the government served special interrogatories asking them to: describe, in great detail, how they came to acquire the money; provide records and other information supporting their account; and explain how Peter came to possess the money.

In their responses, sworn under penalty of perjury, the couple stated that they amassed the cash over time—with advance payments of federal tax refunds, a transfer from a retirement account, the sale of a pair of mink coats, and by other means—and stored their savings in a locked file cabinet. With plans to eventually move from New York to North Carolina, where Peter lives, and to purchase a home there, the pair drove south with cash in excess of $17,900. Along with using the money to pay for trip-related expenses like food and gas, they hoped to buy a used vehicle so that each would have a car to drive after they relocated. Once in North Carolina, they stayed in Peter's home and visited several open houses. On February 26, the couple returned to New York, cutting their trip shorter than expected because one of them called her doctor in New York and learned that she had a medical procedure scheduled. Before driving back, Ms. Rodriguez decided to leave a bag holding the currency in Peter's home "because [the couple] intended to return to North Carolina within a short period of time to continue the search for housing and a car." She "did not provide Peter Rodriguez any information about the amount of the [cash] because [she] believed Peter might have taken some of it had he known it was in the bag." It was on March 28, about a month after the pair left North Carolina, that Peter's backpack was mistakenly removed from the train.

With the record composed of little beside this testimony and the verified complaint, the government moved to strike the couple's claims for lack of standing under Supplemental Rule G(8)(C)(i)(B). The district court, finding that "no reasonable jury could believe the Claimants' bizarre explanation for how they came to own the $17,900," granted the government's motion for summary judgment. United States v. $17,900 , 200 F.Supp.3d 132, 134 (D.D.C. 2016). Our review is de novo. See Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission , 711 F.3d 180, 184 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (explaining that review of a district court's grant of summary judgment is de novo).

II.

When the government moves to strike a claim for lack of standing, a claimant has the burden to establish standing by a preponderance of the evidence. Supplemental Rule G(8)(c). To prevail, "a claimant must meet both Article III and statutory standing requirements." United States v. $487,825 , 484 F.3d 662, 664 (3d Cir. 2007). In this appeal, the government challenges only the former.

As our court has explained, "[t]he requirements for a [claimant] to demonstrate constitutional standing to challenge a forfeiture are very forgiving."

United States v. Emor , 785 F.3d 671, 676 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (alterations omitted). "In general, any colorable claim on the property suffices," id. —typically, an ownership or possessory interest, see, e.g., $133,420 , 672 F.3d at 637. "Article III's standing...