2013 IL App (1st) 111820
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Police found cellophane-wrapped cash in Shayne Kolody’s luggage at Union Station and filed a forfeiture complaint under the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act.
- Shayne moved to suppress the cash evidence, arguing lack of consent and absence of probable cause for the search.
- Trial court suppressed the evidence, finding no consent and no probable cause, and ordered return of the cash to Shayne.
- State appealed arguing Shayne lacked standing, suppression was improper, and there was probable cause for forfeiture.
- Appellate court affirmed suppression and Shayne’s standing, holding without the suppressed evidence the State cannot prove forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to contest forfeiture | Shayne lacked standing to contest the cash. | Shayne possessed the cash and thus had standing to contest forfeiture. | Shayne had standing to contest forfeiture. |
| Exclusionary rule in forfeiture | Exclusionary rule does not apply to forfeiture proceedings. | Exclusionary rule applies, allowing suppression of illegally seized evidence. | Exclusionary rule applies; suppression proper. |
| Probable cause to search without consent | Evidence supported probable cause to search based on the circumstances. | No probable cause; last-minute cash purchase profile not sufficient. | No probable cause; search was unlawful; suppression upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. $1,124,905 U.S. Currency & One 1988 Chevrolet Astro Van, 177 Ill. 2d 314 (1997) (standing to contest forfeiture includes possession interests)
- United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1994) (possession explanation yields standing)
- One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965) (forfeiture evidentiary suppression when search unlawful)
- United States v. Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993) (exclusionary rule applies to forfeiture)
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993) (exclusionary rule governs searches in forfeiture)
- People ex rel. Devine v. $30,700.00 United States Currency, 199 Ill. 2d 142 (2002) (interpretation of forfeiture statute consistent with federal law)
- In re Guardianship of K.R.J., 405 Ill. App. 3d 527 (2010) (standing analyzed via manifest-weight factual findings)
- United States v. Goodwin, 449 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2006) (drug courier profile does not establish probable cause)