United States v. $114,110.00 in United States Currency
937 F.3d 1325
D. Kan.2019Background
- On Sept. 7, 2017, Kansas Highway Patrol stopped a Freightliner driven by Alexander Lopez‑Sanchez on I‑70; consented search uncovered $114,110 in bundled cash hidden in shoeboxes under the sleeper bunk.
- Currency composition and bundling were consistent with drug‑trafficking proceeds; a certified drug K‑9 later alerted to the currency.
- Lopez‑Sanchez initially denied money, then claimed it was his and from lawful sources (sale of trailer, property, work) and intended to buy a truck/trailer.
- Government filed a verified complaint alleging forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) (furnished/intended to be furnished, proceeds, and facilitation theories); Judge Melgren issued a seizure warrant finding probable cause.
- Lopez‑Sanchez filed a claim and moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the court applied Supplemental Rule G’s heightened pleading standard.
- District court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the complaint and incorporated affidavit sufficiently pleaded to support a reasonable belief the government can meet its burden at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to allege a CSA violation | Government: complaint need not allege a specific drug transaction; facts support inference of drug nexus | Lopez‑Sanchez: complaint fails to allege facts showing a CSA violation | Denied — complaint + affidavit give plausible factual basis; specific transaction not required |
| Eighth Amendment / Due Process (excessive fines / intent) | Government: premature; excessive‑fines claim not properly pleaded and discovery not conducted | Lopez‑Sanchez: forfeiture excessive or improper where intent alone, without further acts, is alleged | Denied as premature on excessiveness; intent plus conduct (transporting/ concealment) can support facilitation at pleading stage |
| Facilitation theory sufficiency | Government: transporting, concealment, bundling, K‑9 alert and inconsistent statements plausibly show intent to facilitate drug activity | Lopez‑Sanchez: must allege acts taken to effectuate intended crime (relies on Ninth Circuit decision) | Denied — court finds the alleged facts suffice at pleading stage to support a facilitation claim |
| Proceeds theory sufficiency | Government: bundling, large cash amount, concealment, K‑9 alert and inconsistent statements support inference of drug proceeds | Lopez‑Sanchez: allegations are insufficient; cites older precedents invalidating conclusory complaints | Denied — factual detail in affidavit distinguishes this case from conclusory complaints and supports a reasonable belief government can prevail |
| Sufficiency/personal knowledge of affidavit & probable cause | Government: affidavit incorporated into complaint; courts may consider attached exhibits; probable cause already found by magistrate | Lopez‑Sanchez: affidavit lacks personal‑knowledge basis and does not supply probable cause | Denied — court considered the incorporated affidavit; prior probable‑cause finding and pleaded facts are adequate at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (pleading plausibility standard applied in Tenth Circuit)
- Archuleta v. Wagner, 523 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2008) (viewing facts and reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor)
- Shero v. City of Grove, Okla., 510 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007) (conclusory allegations disregarded on Rule 12(b)(6))
- United States v. $252,300.00 in U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2007) (large cash amounts and concealment support drug nexus)
- United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d 1523 (10th Cir. 1993) (positive dog alert supports probable cause)
- United States v. $39,000 in Canadian Currency, 801 F.2d 1210 (10th Cir. 1986) (criticizing conclusory forfeiture complaints)
- United States v. U.S. Currency, in Amount of $150,660.00, 980 F.2d 1200 (8th Cir. 1992) (discussing insufficiency of vague allegations)
- Funds in the Amount of $100,120.00, 901 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2018) (civil forfeiture does not require proof of a specific drug sale)
- $11,500 U.S. Currency, 869 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2017) (evidence of an affirmative step required to sustain facilitation at trial)
- One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984) (criminal acquittal does not preclude civil forfeiture)
- United States v. $21,055 in U.S. Currency, 778 F. Supp.2d 1099 (D. Kan. 2011) (supporting proposition that proof of specific transaction unnecessary in forfeiture complaint)