People v. $11,200.00 U.S. Currency
313 P.3d 554
Colo.2013Background
- Law enforcement seized $11,200 from Bradley Strand's home during a search that produced drugs; Strand was criminally convicted and Jefferson County filed a civil forfeiture claiming the cash as a public nuisance.
- The civil-forfeiture trial occurred while Strand's criminal appeal was pending; the trial court judicially noticed Strand's conviction, found the cash used in the public nuisance, and entered judgment forfeiting and distributing the funds to government agencies.
- Strand did not appeal the forfeiture judgment or obtain a stay; the funds were distributed and largely spent by recipient agencies years before his criminal conviction was reversed on appeal for an unconstitutional (stale) warrant.
- After remand the criminal charges were dismissed; Strand then moved under C.R.C.P. 60(b) and C.R.S. §16-13-807(1.6) to set aside the forfeiture and obtain return of the $11,200.
- The trial court ordered return of the distributed funds; the court of appeals affirmed. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether §16-13-807(1.6) or Rule 60(b) authorized returning funds after an unappealed, distributed forfeiture judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Strand) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §16-13-807(1.6) requires dismissal of forfeiture and return of seized property when the related criminal case is later dismissed on remand after appellate reversal | §16-13-807(1.6) mandates dismissal of the forfeiture claim and return of "seized property" upon dismissal/acquittal, so it applies and requires return even after conviction reversal and remand | The statute applies only where a forfeiture claim is still pending (i.e., before a forfeiture judgment). Once a judgment is entered and distributed absent appeal/stay, §1.6 does not authorize return | Held for People: §16-13-807(1.6) applies to pending forfeiture claims, not to post-judgment returns after distribution following an unappealed forfeiture judgment |
| Whether the trial court could use C.R.C.P. 60(b) to order return of property already forfeited and distributed | Rule 60(b) can be used to vacate a judgment that was based on an unlawful conviction and thereby secure return of property | Rule 60(b) allows setting aside a judgment but does not itself create a substantive right to recover distributed forfeited funds | Held for People: Trial court could set aside the forfeiture judgment under Rule 60(b) to the extent the judgment was void, but Rule 60(b) does not authorize ordering return of funds already distributed |
| Whether the trial court lost subject-matter or in rem jurisdiction to act after distribution of forfeited property | Strand argued the court retained equitable power to remedy a void forfeiture judgment despite distribution | People argued final distribution after an unappealed judgment left no statutory basis for return and that Strand should have appealed or sought a stay earlier | Held for People: The court lacked statutory authority under the public-nuisance scheme to order return of distributed funds absent appeal/stay; jurisdictional challenge not dispositive given statutory interpretation |
| Whether reversal of the criminal conviction meant the civil forfeiture was "based on" that conviction for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) | Strand argued the forfeiture judgment was based on the conviction (which was used at the forfeiture hearing), so Rule 60(b)(4) relief is available | People emphasized the civil forfeiture proceeded as a separate hearing with other evidence; reversal of conviction does not automatically entitle claimant to restitution of distributed funds | Held for People: Even if the forfeiture used the conviction as evidence, Rule 60(b)(4) cannot be used to compel return of funds once a final, distributed forfeiture judgment exists; statutory scheme controls recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Mishkin v. Young, 107 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2005) (standard of review for statutory construction)
- United States v. Wilkinson, 686 P.2d 790 (Colo. 1984) (forfeiture judgment relates back to date of seizure; explanation of "forfeit as of the date of seizure")
- People v. Lot 23, 735 P.2d 184 (Colo. 1987) (civil in rem nature of forfeiture proceedings)
- Ahart v. Colorado Dep't of Corr., 964 P.2d 517 (Colo. 1998) (precedent regarding exclusionary-rule analysis referenced by parties)
- United States v. One Toshiba Color Television, 213 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2000) (Rule 60(b) cannot itself create a claim for return of property already forfeited)