In the Matter of Property Seized From Jean Carlos Herrera and Fernando Rodriguez, Jean Carlos Herrera and Fernando Rodriguez, Claimants-Appellants.
16-0440
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- In Sept. 2015 an IDOT officer stopped a Ford Expedition driven by Jean Carlos Herrera for speeding; during a forty-minute detention a canine alerted and officers searched the vehicle without Herrera’s consent. Items seized included an emptied ice-cream machine, tools, drug-paraphernalia, a Pelican case with trace marijuana, and cash; the vehicle was towed and later searched at the garage without additional findings.
- Fernando Rodriguez is the registered owner of the Expedition; after he sought counsel to reclaim the vehicle an officer obtained a search warrant (the warrant application did not mention Rodriguez would be entitled to attorney fees) and a subsequent search revealed $44,900 in a secret compartment.
- The State filed an in rem forfeiture complaint under Iowa Code chapter 809A seeking forfeiture of items seized at the stop and under the warrant. Herrera and Rodriguez filed a joint answer; Herrera signed, Rodriguez did not. Herrera also filed motions to suppress the traffic stop and the warrant-based search.
- The district court dismissed Herrera’s claim (concluding his answer failed to satisfy the statutory pleading requirements of Iowa Code § 809A.13(4)) and declined to rule on his suppression motion for lack of standing; the court ordered forfeiture. Herrera appealed.
- The State agreed to return the Expedition to Rodriguez; Rodriguez sought statutory attorney fees under Iowa Code § 809A.12(7). The district court denied fees, finding Rodriguez was not a prevailing party and failed to show the fees sought were incurred for his claim. Rodriguez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant may be excused from statutory pleading requirements in forfeiture proceedings when compliance would implicate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights | Herrera: pleading required by §809A.13(4) would force self-incrimination or disclose derivative evidence of unlawful search; thus he should be allowed to litigate suppression before complying | State: statutory pleading requirements are mandatory; a claimant may refrain from filing a claim but cannot file a deficient answer and then insist on merits | Court: §809A.13(4) requirements are mandatory; invoking constitutional rights does not excuse compliance; claimant lacked statutory compliance so court properly declined to address suppression, but forfeiture order itself was premature absent a court probable-cause determination under §809A.16(3) |
| Whether striking/stripping a deficient answer and ordering forfeiture is proper remedy when answer fails statutory form | Herrera: forfeiture as a result of asserting rights is an unconstitutional penalty | State: statute authorizes forfeiture procedures when no proper answer is filed | Court: rejecting penalty argument (following Aronson/Baker), but district court erred to the extent it ordered forfeiture without first finding State’s written application established probable cause per §809A.16(3); remand for probable-cause determination |
| Whether Rodriguez prevailed and is entitled to attorney’s fees under §809A.12(7) as a successful exempt-owner claimant | Rodriguez: he prevailed because the State returned the vehicle, so he is a prevailing party entitled to fees | State: return was discretionary; no prevailing-party status; even if prevailing, fees were not shown to be incurred for Rodriguez’s claim | Court: even accepting prevailing-party analysis not necessary, Rodriguez failed to carry burden to segregate and prove fees incurred for his claim; district court did not abuse discretion in denying fees |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Aronson, 440 N.W.2d 394 (Iowa 1989) (forfeiture upheld where claimants failed to comply with statutory requirements; rejecting claim that forfeiture was penalty for asserting Fifth Amendment)
- United States v. Duchi, 944 F.2d 391 (8th Cir. 1991) (discusses fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree and proximate cause for exclusionary rule)
- New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) (statements not suppressible if not the product of exploitation of the illegality)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine and requirement of exploitation for suppression)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (statements following an arrest without probable cause may be derivative and suppressible)
- Baker v. United States, 722 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 1983) (rejecting argument that statutory forfeiture violates Fifth Amendment by making assertion of privilege "costly")
- Wohlstrom v. Buchanan, 884 P.2d 687 (Ariz. 1994) (concluding striking claim for failure to comply with pleading statute could penalize assertion of Fifth Amendment)
- Loveless v. State, 786 S.E.2d 899 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016) (upholding striking answer for failure to meet forfeiture pleading requirements; rejecting blanket Fifth Amendment exemption)