766 F. Supp. 2d 533
D.N.J.2011Background
- Kress, a self-employed currency transportation service provider, operates confidentially with no record-keeping and no inquiry into currency sources.
- Statutes N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(a) and N.J.S.A. 2C:21-26 criminalize transport/possession of currency known or believed derived from crime.
- 2C:21-25a allows conviction where knowledge is shown or reasonably inferred from circumstances and lack of documentation.
- Kress filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to enjoin enforcement as unconstitutional, arguing vagueness, overbreadth, and Commerce Clause issues.
- The court granted Defendants’ summary judgment and denied Kress’s, dismissing the Second Verified Amended Complaint.
- Arrests of Amaya and Mejia for large undocumented currency support the state's enforcement posture and the risk to Kress’s business.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the statutes | Kress has a concrete economic injury from enforcement. | No injury-in-fact since money laundering is not protected; fears are speculative. | Kress has standing; fear of prosecution and economic injury satisfy standing. |
| Vagueness/overbreadth of the statutes | Reasonable-person standard is amorphous and unconstitutional. | Lawful statutes; reasonable standard is permissible; conduct evident from Plaintiff’s business. | Statutes are not vague or overbroad; reasonable-person standard acceptable; applied to Plaintiff’s conduct is clear. |
| Presumption/burden of proof | Statutes create mandatory presumptions shifting burden to defendant. | Statutes create permissive inferences, not mandatory presumptions. | Statutes create permissive inferences, not mandatory presumptions; no due process violation. |
| Commerce Clause compliance | Statutes burden interstate commerce by forcing disclosure of source. | Legitimate local interest; minimal interstate burden; benefits outweigh costs. | Statutes upheld; no substantial burden on interstate commerce; legitimate local interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Haulers Ass'n., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Authority, 550 U.S. 330 (U.S. 2007) (discrimination: burden on interstate commerce not shown; broad deference to state regulations)
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1970) (balancing test for burden on interstate commerce)
- Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1985) (mandatory vs. permissive inferences; due process limits)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1979) (presumptions and due process considerations)
- I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1983) (statutory validity and notice requirements; general principles of due process)
- Morales v. Fortuno, 629 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 2010) (commerce clause and balancing approach in Dormant Commerce Clause)
- U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (reasonableness and evidence standards in search-and-seizure context)
- Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1952) (warns against overbreadth and perilous proximity to criminality)
- Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1988) (notice and reasonable person standard in vagueness analysis)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) (clarity requirements in criminal standards; reasonable person standard)
- Hoffman v. Flipside, Hoff. v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1982) (overbreadth considerations in due process)
- Ragen v. United States, 314 U.S. 513 (U.S. 1942) (mere use of reasonable-person standard does not render statute vague)
- Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1985) (mandatory presumption vs permissive inference distinction)