Disner v. United States of America
888 F. Supp. 2d 83
D.D.C.2012Background
- ASD was a Ponzi scheme operated by Bowdoin, who was indicted and pled guilty to wire fraud; he was sentenced to 78 months.
- Federal agents seized about $80 million from ASD-related accounts and other assets under in rem forfeiture proceedings.
- The Government filed multiple forfeiture actions against the seized funds and property purchased with ASD money.
- Disner and Schweitzer, as fraud victims, sought to intervene and later challenged the warrants and seizures as Fourth Amendment violations.
- The court held movants lacked statutory and constitutional standing to challenge the forfeitures or seizures, and there was no privacy interest in ASD records.
- The Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing was granted and the case was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Fourth Amendment seizure | Disner/Schweitzer claim their rights were violated by warrants and seizures | Government contends plaintiffs lack constitutional and statutory standing in forfeiture actions | No; plaintiffs lack constitutional and statutory standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal and not vicarious)
- United States v. Segura-Baltazar, 448 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2006) (privacy expectations in searches)
- United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008) (subscriber information to ISP not protected by Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (business records obtained by subpoena; no reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2001) (information revealed to third parties loses privacy expectation)
- United States v. Real Property Located at 5208 Los Franciscos Way, 385 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2004) (standing in forfeiture turns on sufficient property interest)