United States v. $11,500.00 in United States Currency
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5447
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Guerrero’s wife was arrested for heroin distribution; Guerrero helped post his wife’s bail with $11,500.
- Currency confiscated: $11,500 and $2,971; only Guerrero filed a claim asserting a possessory interest.
- District court struck the $11,500 claim for failure to identify the bailor as required by Rule G(5)(a)(iii); $2,971 forfeiture proceeded.
- Guerrero later asserted a bailee/ownership theory; district court relied on ‘strict compliance’ but dismissed without allowing amendment.
- The government did not timely notice Guerrero under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i) but proceeded with forfeiture; district court ruled timely notice not required to return property.
- On appeal, court affirmed as to $2,971, vacated as to $11,500 and remanded for further proceedings on that amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bailor identification is mandatory after later bailee assertion | Guerrero argues Rule G(5)(a)(iii) applies only if bailee stated on claim. | Government argues Rule G(5)(a)(iii) applies to bailee claims, even if asserted later. | Rule G(5)(a)(iii) applies; however, dismissal was an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether striking Guerrero's claim was an abuse of discretion | Discretion to overlook noncompliance should apply; no prejudice or delay shown. | District court correctly struck for noncompliance with bailor identification. | Abuse of discretion to strike; leave to amend should have been considered. |
| Whether $11,500 was sufficiently proven as drug proceeds or related funds | Evidence supports legitimate source; insurer’s proceeds possible. | Circumstantial evidence links funds to drug trafficking; no genuine dispute. | There is a genuine issue of material fact as to the $11,500’s source; summary judgment improper. |
| Timeliness of notice and return of property where forfeiture proceedings later commenced | Failure to timely notice requires return of seized property. | Government may proceed with forfeiture after notice failure; return not required. | Failure to provide timely notice does not require return when forfeiture proceeding has begun. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 135 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir. 1998) (purpose of forfeiture pleading is to inform court of claimant and basis)
- United States v. 2,164- Watches, 366 F.3d 767, 366 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2004) (de novo review of Rule interpretation; standing standards)
- United States v. Real Property at 2659 Roundhill Dr., Alamo, Cal., 194 F.3d 1020, 194 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 1999) (discretion to overlook failure to comply with forfeiture rules)
- United States v. Currency, U.S. $12,500.00, 283 F.3d 977, 283 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2002) (strong circumstantial evidence can prove drug connection in forfeiture)
- United States v. $133,120.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 672 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2012) (burden on government to prove forfeiture by preponderance; admissible evidence standard)
- United States v. $260,24.2.00 in U.S. Currency, 919 F.2d 686, 919 F.2d 686 (11th Cir. 1990) (notice of bailor requirement; understandings of standing)