In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency
241 Ariz. 462
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- May 28, 2013: Pinal County deputy seized $15,379 in cash from a vehicle carrying a large load of marijuana; cash claimed by Corrina Macias.
- Forfeiture proceeding filed by the State contained service and timeliness defects; trial court found it lacked jurisdiction for the in rem forfeiture and ordered return of the currency "to the extent" it was not evidence in a criminal matter.
- Macias moved for immediate return of the cash or an equivalent payment, attorney fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and Rule 11 sanctions.
- Trial court denied immediate return/payment (citing pending criminal case), denied costs and Rule 11 sanctions, and declined to award attorney fees under the mandamus statute.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals found the record contained no justification for retaining the actual currency, reversed the rulings denying immediate return/payment, denying costs, and denying Rule 11 sanctions, and remanded for appropriate relief and sanctions; affirmed other aspects of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Macias) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state must return seized cash or pay equivalent while it is claimed as evidence | State has no legitimate basis; money is fungible; photos/copies suffice for evidence | Criminal and civil forfeiture are separate; civil court lacks authority to order return of property held as evidence | Court reversed: superior court erred; state must justify retention; here no justification, so immediate return or equivalent payment ordered |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions/attorney fees are warranted for initiating forfeiture | Forfeiture was untimely and procedurally defective; sanctions and fees appropriate | Counsel acted in good faith; discretionary fee statutes do not mandate fees | Court: counsel lacked objective basis for filing untimely forfeiture -> Rule 11 violation; remanded to impose appropriate sanctions (including possible fees) |
| Whether Macias is entitled to costs under A.R.S. § 12-341 | Winning party entitled to recover costs as a matter of right | State later argued some items not taxable (waived on appeal) | Court: award of costs mandatory; remanded to award costs to Macias |
| Whether Macias is entitled to prejudgment interest under A.R.S. § 12-823 | Seizure deprived use of money; prejudgment interest appropriate | State disputed entitlement | Court: issue waived on appeal due to lack of record citation in opening brief; not addressed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Krimstock v. Kelly, 464 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2006) (procedural-due-process framework requires court scrutiny of prosecutor's asserted need to retain property as evidence)
- In re Approximately $50,000, 196 Ariz. 626 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000) (superior court retains jurisdiction to order return of property even when in rem forfeiture was improper)
- In re $3,636.24, 198 Ariz. 504 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000) (statutory sixty-day filing requirement for forfeiture cannot be excused; failure mandates release)
- Boone v. Superior Court, 145 Ariz. 235 (Ariz. 1985) (Rule 11 standard: claims are sanctionable if objectively frivolous or filed for improper purpose)
- James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993) (appellate review of Rule 11 for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Salerno, 216 Ariz. 22 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (state has no absolute right to retain an individual's property; must articulate reasonable basis)
- United States v. 608 Taylor Ave., 584 F.2d 1297 (3d Cir. 1978) (court should consider less drastic alternatives when state seeks to retain currency as evidence)